Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Post Office

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what discussions she has recently had with the Post Office Users' Consultative Committee.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Alan Williams): My Department is in regular contact with the Post Office Users' National Council on issues of concern to the consumer.

Mr. Morris: Is the Minister aware that the public are at present totally disillusioned with the service that the Post Office is offering and, indeed, with the Government's handling of the recent price increases? As a result of the hon. Gentleman's negotiations with the Post Office Users' National Council is he able to tell the House that the inquiry into the Post Office will be a comprehensive one, and not merely another one of the whitewashes that we have come to expect from the Government?

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman will know that my Department took part in the original discussions on the POUNC report and, indeed, I think that we can claim that we had some influence in having it decided that there would be an inquiry. Obviously we want the inquiry to be a reasonable and wide-ranging inquiry, and we have no interest in participating in a whitewash.
Concerning the recent price increases, of course this is a matter for disquiet. We are not exactly pleased about it, but the fact is that 75 per cent. of all postal work is for business and 66 per cent. of telephone work is for business. Therefore, any extra subsidy in the Post Office sector would subsidise industry rather than the consumer.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does my hon. Friend realise what a terrible blow it is to old-age pensioners to have to pay 6½p for second-class post for Christmas cards or 8½p for first-class postage on cards? Would the heavens really fall in if the Post Office allowed old-age pensioners a concession on this so that they do not have to spend those large amounts?

Mr. Alan Williams: I fully understand the sympathetic motives which prompt my hon. Friend's question. He will bear in mind that this is not the responsibility of my Department. It is the responsibility of the Department of Industry—

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Buck passing.

Mr. Alan Williams: Perhaps my hon. Friend will listen for a moment. He should bear in mind when considering the announcement by the Post Office in which it said that it was unable to give the concession for which he asked that about an extra 60 million Christmas cards would need to be posted in order to make up the lost revenue that the Post Office anticipates, and this would still not cover the extra administrative costs.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I declare my interest as a member of POUNC. Does the Minister accept than POUNC has been pressing without success for more than three years for this concessionary rate for Christmas cards and the Post Office has refused to carry out a proper experiment? Concerning the inquiry, will the Minister agree to consult POUNC before finalising the terms of reference?

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman is very helpful in making that point. It is five years since POUNC put forward that recommendation. In three of those five years the Conservative Party was in Government and chose not to implement the recommendation. Now we have a sudden deluge of tears and sympathy from Opposition Members who hardly noticed the recommendation in the past.

Gas and Electricity Charges (Birmingham)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will ask the appropriate consumer advisory council to investigate the 100 per cent. increase in standing charges for gas and electricity introduced in September by Birmingham City Council.

The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Heating and Rent Payment (HARP) scheme, under which elderly tenants can spread their fuel costs over a year by making a fixed payment for heating, which is collected with the rent. The scheme is entirely optional, and the Birmingham City Council is responsible for payment of the total cost of the fuel consumed under the scheme. I understand that the recent increases were made to reduce the substantial deficits that have arisen since the scheme was introduced in December 1973. The Price Commission has looked into them and has found no reason to intervene.

Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an essential feature of the Government's counter-inflation policy that there should be rigorous restraint on prices as well as on incomes? Is he satisfied with the behaviour of the public corporations in relation to prices to consumers? This is one example that is simply not helping the counter-inflation policy one iota.

Mr. Maclennan: I am aware of the general considerations which my hon. Friend has brought forward, but he will be aware that Birmingham City Council was faced with a substantial deficit, which it was not permitted to allow on the rate fund, beyond that for which provision was made. It was therefore necessary to review the charges to the tenants to prevent there being a deficiency over and above the contingency fund.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: In view of the shattering rate of inflation in the public sector and the increasing burden of price increases that have been imposed upon consumers, will the Minister wake up to the seriousness of the problem? [Interruption.] It is nothing to do with the deficit, as the Price Commission has

made clear. Will the Minister immediately institute an investigation in order to establish the reason for these very high costs in the public sector and precisely why they are so much higher in the public sector than in the private sector?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady appears to be talking about something other than what is involved in this Question. There is a specific Question later on the Order Paper about the public sector.

Nationalised Industries

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she has yet received the report of the National Consumer Council on the work of the consumer consultative organisations concerned with the Post Office and the nationalised industries.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she is satisfied that consumers of nationalised industries' goods and services are adequately protected.

Mr. Alan Williams: In addition to the full range of consumer legislation, users of nationalised industries' goods and services have the benefit of assistance and representation from those industries' consumer councils. I have asked the National Consumer Council to report on consumer representation in the nationalised industries by 1st March 1976 and I shall consider carefully any improvements it recommends.

Mr. Hurd: Has not the Secretary of State a great opportunity here? Will she give these councils the power, for the first time, to investigate why, in case after case, the nationalised industries are piling fresh charges on to the consumer without, apparently, abolishing their deficits? Is it not becoming clear that we shall not get a decently run public sector until its managements are just as wary of the consumer as they now are of the trade unions?

Mr. Alan Williams: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be helpful from the consumers' point of view. He will be glad that the deficits are showing


signs of falling during the current financial year. At this stage it would be improper for me to prejudge a review the results of which will not be available until early next year.

Mr. Lamont: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many consumers consider that the absence of market pressures is resulting in inefficient working within the nationalised industries? Did he notice the reports of a recent court case in which an employee of the Post Office accused of fraudulently claiming overtime based his defence on the grounds that that practice was widespread within the Post Office? Is the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection looking into abuses of this kind within the public sector?

Mr. Alan Williams: It is hardly our job to pursue criminal activity within the employment sector, be it public or private. Obviously, we share the disquiet that exists. The hon. Gentleman must be careful not to build an indictment against the nationalised industries in general on an instance of what appears to be one rather reprehensible case. If he insists on doing that, he will find similar cases in the private sector. No conclusion can be drawn from it.

Mr. Heffer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a great deal of hypocrisy coming from Tory Members who argue strongly that there must be an economic price for the nationalised industries and, at the same time, accuse the Government of acting wrongly when prices rise as a result of the very arguments which they have advanced? I am not very much in favour of the arguments advanced by Tory Members.

Mr. Alan Williams: My hon. Friend is correct to use the word "hypocrisy" to describe some of the views that we hear from Opposition Members, who continually bray for the elimination of subsidies and then hold up their hands in horror when price increases are announced to eliminate the subsidies.

Milk Prices

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she has any plans to increase the retail price of milk.

Mr. Maclennan: As announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agri-

culture, Fisheries and Food on 15th October, the retail price of milk will be increased by 1½p per pint to 8½p per pint on 2nd November 1975.

Mr. Rost: As farmers are to receive only one-quarter of a penny per unit from this increase, what arrangements is the Minister making to protect the consumer against the inevitable shortages which will result as the dairy herd goes into further decline? Are we to import dried skimmed milk from the Continent to ration out to consumers?

Mr. Maclennan: I am happy to be able to reply that there is no risk of any shortage of liquid milk in the foreseeable future. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do the country no service by suggesting anything to the contrary. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that since the measures announced by my right hon. Friend there have been some encouraging changes in the numbers of calf slaughterings.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend consider asking my right hon. Friend to have talks with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the new policy of the Common Market, which is to feed liquid milk to cattle and pigs, which to many Socialists is totally abhorrent while three-quarters of the world are dying of starvation?

Mr. Maclennan: That is a question for my right hon. Friend which undoubtedly can be raised at the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is no shortage of milk, will he tell the House why, on Friday of this week, a milk factory is to close in my constituency because of shortage of milk, with the result that 71 people will lose their jobs? Is he unaware that because of the shortage of milk no butter has been made in Britain for many months, and every bit of butter we require has been imported, at a cost to the exchanges? How can the hon. Gentleman tell the House that there is no shortage of milk?

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman had only listened he would have realised that I said that there was no shortage, nor any expected shortage, of liquid milk


for consumption. That is what the question was about. It is true that there is a decline in milk production and that that is affecting butter manufacture. It is encouraging to notice that there is some increase in the production of cheese in this country.

Mr. Watt: What grounds does the Minister have for believing that there will be no reduction in the supply of milk? Is he aware that every week now farmers are losing confidence, and more and more of them are joining in the flight from milk production?

Mr. Maclennan: I am not altogether surprised to find my former Conservative opponent somewhat confused by the facts. If he had listened to what I said he would know that I made it abundantly clear that there is no shortage of liquid milk for consumption. I have said that there is a decline in production which is affecting butter manufacture.

Cost of Living

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the percentage increase in the cost of living over the last 12 months.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what has been the increase in the retail price index over the past 12 months.

The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): The retail prices index for September was 26·6 per cent. higher than a year earlier. This represents a small decrease on the corresponding year-on-year figures for August and marks the first year-on-year decline for 12 months.

Mr. Jessel: Why have the Government allowed the rate of increase in the cost of living to triple in the 12 months since October 1974, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the rate of increase in the cost of living was 8 per cent.?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman should recall that his Question is about year-on-year rates, and he is now quoting three-monthly rates. It does no good to the House to compare these two different rates, as he will discover in the course of exchanges on later Questions.

Mr. Tomlinson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that hon. Members opposite seemed to be remarkably concerned about quarterly figures until recently? Can she explain to the House why there has been this apparent conversion from asking for quarterly rates to asking for yearly figures?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. The three-monthly trend reads as follows: in July, at an annual rate it was 32·6 per cent., and the Opposition were very interested; in August, it was 15·2 per cent. and the Opposition had no opportunity to ask Questions; in September, it was 10·4 per cent. and the Opposition have not asked any Questions.

Mr. Adley: Does the right hon. Lady realise that, no matter how much she tries to wriggle, fiddle and twist, the fact of the matter is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the last General Election, one year ago, deliberately told the country that the rate of inflation was 8·4 per cent.? As the majority of the people are not quite so clever as she is or as her right hon. Friend is at twisting and deceiving in this way—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not accuse another right hon. or hon. Member of deceiving.

Mr. Adley: I withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker—misleading the country by a terminological inexactitude which sought to give people the impression that the Government had inflation under control, to what does she ascribe the fact that inflation has exploded so much? Is it too much or too little Socialism?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman does the profession of politics no good by continually switching from year-on-year rates to three-monthly rates. The House should decide which it wants and stick to them. Constant changes of comparison to suit Opposition advantage do not help in the battle against inflation.
The Government have made no bones about the fact that increased costs, including those of raw materials, labour and interest, were behind the level of inflation. It is well known that the Government have embarked upon a counter-inflation policy which is operating across the board. It is high time the Opposition gave us full support for it.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: In order that the facts should be put as simply as possible and in view of the conflicting forecasts about the rate of inflation which have emanated from a number of Ministers, will the right hon. Lady tell us whether we should accept the Chancellor's forecast that the rate of inflation will be between 12 per cent. and 16 per cent. by the end of this year, or the Government's own target of 10 per cent. by the end of next year, or the Foreign Secretary's forecast of about 12 per cent. by the end of next year? Would the right hon. Lady like to add her own forecast in reply?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: When the last administration left office they were basing their own forecasts for inflation on a probable very rapid decline in commodity levels. In the event, that was proved wrong. I therefore think it wiser to say that we are at present directly on target for the Government's own forecast of increase in the Index of Retail Prices by the end of next year. Clearly, it would be most unwise to say that that forecast is firm, in view of what may occur in the world outside. The hon. Lady will recall that only recently, as a result of OPEC bargaining, there was an increase in oil prices—the sort of increase which none of us can ever foresee months ahead and which we would be unwise to try to foresee.

Prices

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will now introduce further measures to control prices.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what measures she proposes to take to prevent price rises for the consumer over the next six months.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The present strict price controls are being continued. They permit price increases only when they are justified by costs. A price freeze now would only put more jobs at risk, since firms' margins, which are now little more than half the permitted reference levels set in 1973, would not allow them to absorb the additional costs themselves.
The Government have undertaken to take further consultative action on the

prices of products of special importance in family expenditure once it is clear that costs have decelerated sufficiently to allow such action to be taken without causing bankruptcies and unemployment.

Mr. Canavan: In view of reports that by next spring the average family's weekly food bill will have increased by about £1·30 and that the £6 pay limit will have been more than used up by further price increases in such items as rents, rates and fuel, will my right hon. Friend investigate the possibility of introducing a selective price freeze on certain basic food items and also make mandatory the local price surveys which she has asked local authorities to introduce?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the purpose of the selective price restraint programme which we shall be negotiating with industry in the next few months will be to hold down the cost of essential goods across the range in order to marry with the restraint which is being shown in incomes. We recognise that people have a right to expect a return for the restraint which they are showing.
I ask my hon. Friend to await an answer to the second part of his supplementary question, because there is a later Question on the Order Paper which is directly concerned with it.

Mr. Giles Shaw: May I remind the right hon. Lady that in her answer she referred to the effects of price restraint on unemployment? Conversely, will she comment on the chances of an improved climate for employment and the creation of more jobs if she were to relax the Price Code?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The House will know that over the whole of the counter-inflation programme we are walking a delicate tightrope between the need to maintain employment and the need to reduce inflationary pressures. Taking those two factors and attempting to balance them as best we can, I do not believe that further relaxation of the Price Code in the present counter-inflationary year would be sensible. However, I recognise that the effect of price restraint has been very sharply to lower profit margins, and the House should be aware of that.

Mr. Thorne: My right hon. Friend has talked about the possibility of jobs being placed at risk. Does she agree that jobs are already at risk following the Government's attitude to inflation policy? Does she think that confidence might be restored among the people if she really attacked the question of prices?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: If there had not been a counter-inflation programme—I notice that my hon. Friend does not support it—we would today be facing grave problems in attempting to sell exports and maintaining the credibility of this country. That is why many of my colleagues and I strongly support the counter-inflation programme. I have made it clear that it is my full intention to ensure that the easing of cost pressures, as soon as it begins, is reflected in the level of prices.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Has the Secretary of State seen the report of the economic development committee of the food and drink industry on investment in that industry? It shows that in 1976 that committee expects investment to be down 20 per cent., in 1977 to be down 30 per cent. and in 1978 to be down 40 per cent. Before her hon. Friends talk about relaxing the Price Code, should not she drum those figures into the "know nothing" Left?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The food manufacturers have certainly seen a rapid drop in their profit margins. In the first quarter of 1975 they were approximately half what they were in the first quarter of 1974. In a counter-inflationary period, one must put a squeeze on profits as well as on incomes; I believe that that is right. We have recognised in the Price Code—we are the first Government to do so—that there is scope for investment relief, and that is why we have written it into the code.

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she is satisfied with the current Price Code; and if she will consider introducing legislation for a price freeze of essential commodities together with the publication of maximum prices to be charged, such price lists to cover a much wider range than solely subsidised foods.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Price Code is far from perfect, but it does keep price

increases down in line with increases in costs. To superimpose a price freeze on essential goods when costs are still rising would endanger the jobs of those who make them. However, I shall shortly begin negotiations with the appropriate representative bodies for a programme of selective price restraint on a range of goods of special importance in family expenditure. The programme will come into operation when it is clear that the pay limit is being effectively observed and cost pressure begins to ease. Imposing maximum prices on unsubsidised goods does little to keep prices down. I am, however, initiating regular price comparisons very widely on which will be based price lists showing where prices are lowest in each locality covered.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the TUC would welcome a price freeze, particularly in view of its cooperation over the development of the social contract? Does she accept that the publication of a much wider range of prices, which I have outlined in the Question, would be widely welcomed and could be adequately policed by the local authority price and consumer units which my right hon. Friend mentioned in reply to an earlier Question? Would that not be implementing that section of Labour's 1973 programme on the machinery of price control?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: On the first part of the question, my hon. Friend will appreciate that I, too, would like a price freeze, but I am faced with the fact that, for example, in the two months to September the price of material inputs into food manufacture alone—we are talking not about farm gate prices but about import prices—rose by 10½ per cent., and last month oil prices rose by 10 per cent. If these costs are simply stopped from being followed through they will lead to wide-scale redundancies. Therefore, much as I should like to see a price freeze, I am satisfied that it is not on, without driving firms into bankruptcy. I am doing my best to reflect any reduction in costs all the way through by the price restraint programme which I have described.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I think that he will accept that there is a wide range of shop prices, from the small corner shop to the city centre supermarket. If we set a maximum price


which enables the small shop to stay in business—its income is often less than £2,000 a year clear—we shall be put in a position which will ensure very large profits for the supermarkets. The most effective method is not maximum prices, but the method that we have introduced, of widely publicising comparative prices.

Mr. Michael Morris: I declare an interest. When will the right hon. Lady recognise that the food manufacturers have borne the brunt of the restraints imposed by the previous Government and this one? Bearing that point in mind, and also that commodity prices are now rising again, does she realise that, far from any further restrictions, there will have to be a relaxation of the Price Code for food manufacturers in general? Far more good would be done by restraining rate increases, which are becoming a bigger problem for the lower paid, than food increases.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In a period when we are asking for wage restraint at the level of £6 a week, which for many people means rises of less than 10 per cent., it would be unfair to leave any section of the community outside such restraint, including food manufacturers. There has been some improvement in the position of food manufacturers. I do not quarrel with that, but they, also, must make their contribution to the counter-inflation programme, because it is as much in their interests as anybody else's that it should succeed.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many workers at the Kraft factory at Kirby are now on short-time working because of the reduction in demand for margarine, following the butter subsidy? Is she aware that there is great resentment among them that butter, which is largely imported, is subsidised out of their taxes, whereas margarine is an indigenous product? Will she consider giving a similar, if not an equal, subsidy to margarine as is given to butter?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I think my hon. Friend should be aware that, to the best of my knowledge, the raw materials used in the manufacture of margarine are not grown in England. We do not frequently grow oil seeds, and we do not have many whales floating up the

Channel. Therefore, that point is ill taken.
Regarding the relative position of margarine compared with butter, there is likely to be some widening in that position, which will protect my hon. Friend's constituents. However, they have pointed out that they are not opposed to the Government's policy of food subsidies to help the lower paid.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Is it not absurd that Associated British Foods should have had to ask the right hon. Lady's permission to reduce the price of a standard loaf by ½p? Is it not equally absurd that some manufacturers should be prevented from selling loaves in traditional waxed paper at lower prices than loaves in plastic bags? Does this not show that in some respects the Price Code is preventing manufacturers from exercising price competition to the benefit of the consumer?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that Allied Bakeries got permission immediately, when it asked for the right to decrease the price of bread by ½p. The hon. Gentleman will also appreciate that we have a direct responsibility to this House and to the general public to protect the use of subsidies and to ensure that they benefit the consumer rather than any particular firm. For that reason, firms must ask permission to change their prices—properly so—and we grant that permission if the position is clear.

Price Monitoring

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement about the reaction of local authorities to her proposals for local price monitoring.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many local authorities have availed themselves of the grants available to them from her Department for the provision of price information.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am very pleased at the encouraging response. A total of 130 firm and provisional applications in respect of about 460 shopping


centres have been received; 108 are from local authorities.

Mr. Cartwright: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain local chambers of commerce have voiced their total opposition to the concept of price comparisons? Will she confirm that the honest retailer has absolutely nothing to fear from this process if it is competently and fairly undertaken? Therefore, will she press on with her campaign to persuade more local authorities to undertake this work?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. In the preliminary surveys we have discovered that savings of as much as 20p in the pound can be made by shopping where the best value for money is available. We should tell those in the retail trade that we take their claims about competition seriously and intend to make competition really effective. The retailer who is efficient and is serving his customers properly not only has nothing to fear but everything to gain from the facts being widely known.

Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that her policy on price information is working? Not all local authorities have jumped at the grants which are available. Is she sure that she is not wasting the taxpayers' money in what amounts to a purely Socialist public relations exercise?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Two-thirds of local authorities have submitted applications, and much as I should like to hope that my party controlled two-thirds of local authorities, it does not. Among those authorities is the hon. Gentleman's own county and among the areas covered is his own constituency. Therefore, he will be able to see on the ground how effective the policy is.

Mock Auctions

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will amend the legislation governing mock auctions so as to provide greater protection to the public against exploitation.

Mr. Alan Williams: I have at present no plans to do so, but if the hon. Member has any evidence of practices in this

field not covered by present legislation I shall be glad if he will let me know.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities, particularly those in North Wales, are anxious to prevent but have been unable to prevent the spread of this most undesirable practice, which is nothing short of organised swindling? A great deal more information is required about what is available to local authorities to deal with the situation. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to consult local authorities in the area about what steps can be taken?

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman will know that there was a court decision in February this year which, it was felt, widened the scope of the existing legislation. We are awaiting further test cases and hope that local authorities will institute such cases. Under Part II of the Fair Trading Act the Director General of Fair Trading has power to make proposals for further legislation, should that be appropriate. It is unusual for me to receive invitations to visit hon. Members' constituencies—they are more than happy if I stay away—but if it would be of help to members of the hon. Gentleman's local authority I should be glad to arrange a visit to discuss the matter with them.

Metrication

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement regarding progress towards the metrication of consumer goods.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement on the programme for introducing metrication so far as it affects her Department.

Mr. Alan Williams: Successive Governments have believed metrication to be in the national interest and that the process should be completed as soon as possible. My Department will continue to support the change-over. It has always been recognised that the metrication of consumer goods would follow that of industry, but, on the whole, progress in this sector will need to be quicker if we are to fulfil our EEC obligation to phase out the general use of imperial units by the end of 1979.

Miss Fookes: What steps is the Minister taking to allay the well-founded suspicion that this may be an opportunity for the same price rises that occurred with decimalisation?

Mr. Alan Wiliams: What the hon. Lady says is not well founded. I should be intrigued to see the evidence on which she bases that allegation. That applies to any hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is common sense."] The Opposition are hardly in a position to talk about common sense—although we may be able to arrange for a definition of common sense to be provided.
As hon. Members are concerned about this matter, if they are aware of instances of cheating on the change-over, we want to know about them. The Metrication Board and the Government have received few complaints, compared with those raised on decimalisation. The Opposition subscribed to this process and set the end date of 1979. So far, the sector-by-sector approach has enabled us to keep fair and proper scrutiny over the price increases at the time of metrication.

Mr. Whitehead: I support metrication, but we all remember what happened with decimalisation. What do the Department estimate will be the effect of this changeover on the cost of living?

Mr. Alan Williams: There is no reason why there should be a direct effect. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen were not articulate against metrication when the Conservative Party was in office.

Mr. Fell: I was.

Mr. Alan Williams: There is no reason why there should be extra cost. As a result of discussions between the Metrication Board, the Government and industry, attempts are being made to ensure that re-equipping takes place at the time of change-over, thereby minimising additional costs. There will be the advantages of reduced stock being carried and single production lines instead of imperial and metric production lines.

Mr. Fell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in accusing me of not having been against metrication. I have been against it all along. I should be interested to know the total cost of metrication to the country.

Mr. Alan William: No such figure is calculable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] The Opposition express surprise. Nevertheless, that is so, as so much of the process is being phased in with the natural progress of industrial re-equipment. However, it is impossible to give a meaningful and supportable figure.

Price Commission (Report)

Mr. Giles Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she has received the Price Commission's latest quarterly report for the period 1st June to 31st August 1975, and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The report was laid before the House on 23rd October.

Mr. Shaw: Is the Minister aware that for the second quarter in succession the report of the Price Commission drew special attention to the problem of nationalised industries' costs? Is the Minister aware that the most important factor is costs within industry and not the prices which industry charges? Will the Minister comment on the expression of the Price Commission to the effect that inflation seems to be abating in the private sector but is getting worse in the public sector?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: There are three reasons why the nationalised industries have produced proportionately higher costs than the private sector. First, the increase in oil prices has had a greater effect on the nationalised sector, and especially on the energy industries, than on the private sector taken as a whole. Secondly, nationalised industries are more labour-intensive and have therefore reflected the increase in labour costs. Thirdly, an attempt was made in the past year to reduce the level of public borrowing required to meet the deficits of the nationalised industries, and there are now marked signs of the deficits falling, which have had to be shown in terms of the effect on costs and, eventually, on final prices. That policy was supported by both sides of the House in the past.

Trade Descriptions Act 1968

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when she expects to implement the proposals of the Director General


of the Office of Fair Trading to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

Mr. Alan Williams: The committee, under the chairmanship of the Director General, which is reviewing the Act is still seeking comments on the proposals set out in its consultative document. When I receive the committee's final report I shall consider the content and timing of any amending legislation.

Mr. Neubert: Does the Minister understand the need to make haste in these matters? Otherwise, the Government's proposals may come into the Director General's offending category of vague and misleading claims. Are the proposals likely to include a statutory definition of words such as "waterproof", "unshrinkable", and "dye-fast"? Will the Minister give an assurance that there is no question of reintroducing retail price maintenance?

Mr. Alan Williams: I should not have thought that there was the slightest question of reintroducing retail price maintenance. There is a separate consultative document on the terms to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in addition to the consultative document's reference to prices.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the words of the Shadow Chancellor, who, in his announcement of the reference to the Director General, stated that the consultation should be wide and exhaustive. Those were the words of a former Conservative Minister. They are not the words of a member of this Government. The Director General is merely doing what the Minister at the time told him to do.

Mr. Adley: Successive Governments have used phrases such as "fair trading" and "consumer protection", but the recent events at Southampton, relating to the "Eagle" affair, show that the poor old consumer has no protection when he or she is used as a bargaining counter between two sides of an industrial dispute. Does the Minister accept that this is a matter of the consumer's failing to obtain protection? Will the Department look into the implications of what happened?

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman's request goes beyond the subject of this Question, which concerns consultation on the Trade Descriptions Act. If he

will put down a specific Question we may consider the matter.

Exemption Clauses (Service Industries)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when she intends to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission on exemption clauses in services.

Mr. Alan Williams: I intend to introduce legislation to deal with exemption clauses as soon as possible after we have completed consultations on the proposals with the consumer, legal and business interests concerned.
I shall be happy to send a copy of the consultative letter to any Member who is interested.

Mrs. Oppenheim: As this process is likely to take a considerable time—I appreciate the difficulties—and in view of the need for the introduction of this overdue legislation to protect consumers from exclusion clauses in the provision of services, will the Minister undertake to give Government support, in the next Session, to a Private Member's Bill which may provide a solution?

Mr. Alan Williams: I share the hon. Lady's sense of urgency. I am not criticising, but the Conservative Government took virtually three years to carry out their consultations on the complex issue of exclusion clauses in the provision of goods. It is our hope to complete the consultations in the coming legislative year, if that is at all practicable, and to try to introduce the legislation at the earliest possible date.
The hon. Lady must bear in mind the highly complex nature of this matter, especially the report's recommendation for the codification of the law. It is doubtful whether that is appropriate for Private Members' legislation. We have no wish to delay the implementation of this legislation.

Mr. Dykes: Will the Minister confirm the Government's intention to introduce, in that legislation, elements which will strictly prohibit garages from protecting themselves against damage to vehicles


parked in their car parks or workshops during repairs?

Mr. Alan Williams: We want to do our best to be fair to the consumer. The hon. Gentleman will have read the complex reports on this matter. Consultations will take place, which we hope to complete in not too long a period. I refer to a matter of months. We hope that that will not stretch to years, as on the previous occasion. If the hon. Gentleman, having seen the consultative document, wishes to discuss any aspects of it with my colleagues or myself, I am sure that we shall be delighted to arrange that.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that members of the Liberal Party are not in the slightest degree interested in any of the questions and answers today?

Mr. Alan Williams: The Liberal Party seems to have adopted a self-excluding clause.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister use his best endeavours to bring the matter of exclusion clauses before the House as soon as possible, as many thousands of people will be entering into contracts for holidays? In a number of tragic cases, accidents have occurred and exclusion clauses have robbed those people of the opportunity to make claims.

Mr. Alan Williams: I completely agree that exclusion clauses have on many occasions acted with gross unfairness towards the consumer. I think it is time that in large areas they were completely eliminated and in others modified. This is a fairly intricate area, involving questions of insurance and so on. We want to get it right and it is our intention to do so quickly.

Inflation Accounting (Sandilands Report)

Mr. Dodsworth: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement on the consequences for the Price Code of the report of the Sandilands Committee on inflation accounting.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Sandilands Committee has recommended that, if its proposals for the adoption of current cost accounting are accepted, CCA should become the accounting basis of the Government's price control policy. The

Government are studying the committee's findings, and a statement will be made early in the new Session giving the Government's views on the main recommendations of the report.

Mr. Dodsworth: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the apparent interpretation of the Sandilands Report is that profit levels are insufficient to support the levels of investment required, and that that suggests that there should be an urgent review of the investment relief contained in the Price Code?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the committee made no judgments on the question whether the Price Code would bite harder or less hard if CCA were introduced. It is fair to say that the Committee proposed a starting date of 1977. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in any case the present Price Code does not have legislative authority to continue beyond that date. I suggest that the time to discuss the report is over the next few months.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend consider the suggestion by the Sandilands Committee that the system of capital allowances be extended to include commercial buildings, without waiting for a general review of the whole basis of company taxation?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I take my hon. Friend's proposal on board. We are anxious to do anything that will encourage employment. It was much for that reason that we included distribution warehouses and commercial vehicles in our last review of the Price Code. We shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Giles Shaw: In view of the right hon. Lady's recent statement in the House that she did not foresee any changes to the code prior to July 1976, will she review the position if the Government decide to make changes by implementing the Sandilands Report? It would appear to be highly desirable that the Price Code changes should precede the adoption of the recommendations of that report.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that constant tinkering with the Price Code in a period of counter-inflation policy, which itself


has a final date on it, is perhaps not the wisest way to go about concentrating the country's attention. However, it is fair to say that we are already committed to considering the whole matter by the summer of next year.

Food Subsidies

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the current annual rate of expenditure on food subsidies; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is her latest estimate of the cost of food subsidies in each of the two years ending 5th April 1977.

Mr. Maclennan: The estimated cost of food subsidies in the current financial year is about £554 million. The cost in 1976–77 is expected to be about £400 million, in 1975 price terms.

Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that subsidies of this magnitude represent an essay in economic unreality? May we hope that the expected downturn as between the second year and the current year will indicate that these subsidies will be speedily phased out, as a contribution to the reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Maclennan: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views, but the food subsidy programme developed last year brought quick and effective relief to the low-income families most affected by sharply rising prices.

Mr. Gow: Will the Minister rephrase the answer which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) in terms of actual pounds instead of unreal pounds? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that more than half of the total food subsidies for the current year and for the following year will be received by families in receipt of an income of more than £50 a week?

Mr. Maclennan: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, that is a matter still to be calculated when the final figures are agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the second part, I remind him that the benefit of subsidies to those with incomes of less than £20 a week is four

times greater than to those earning £80 a week.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will my hon. Friend assure us that there is no question of phasing out this valuable help to low income families? Will he again emphasise the point, which is deliberately neglected by the Opposition, that there is a considerable redistribution from the wealthier section of the community to the benefit of the vast majority of poorer people?

Mr. Maclennan: The future of subsidies is spelt out in the January White Paper on public expenditure as amended by the July White Paper on inflation. It is made clear that it is the Government's view that this is a most helpful means of assistance to the less well-off members of our community, for the reasons which my hon. Friend gave. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Child Poverty Action Group has revised its view and now accepts the Government's reasons for having this policy.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: The introduction of food subsidies has formed part of the electoral programme of the Labour Party on at least one occasion. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the phasing out of these subsidies is either not part of the programme or was included in at least one of the electoral programmes on the last occasion?

Mr. Maclennan: It has always been made clear by my right hon. Friend that this programme was intended to bridge the difficult gap before it was possible to bring in other forms of benefit. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that substantial increases in social security benefits are in train.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to ask leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Fireworks (Accidents)

Mr. Gwilyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what study she has made of the consultative document on firework accidents; if, in the light of this study, she will take steps to reduce firework accidents; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Alan Williams: About 60 organisations, representing a wide range of interests, have submitted their views. I am now holding urgent discussions with the industry and distributors' associations.

Mr. Roberts: Although my hon. Friend may not be prepared to go as far as some of us would wish in this direction, will he give us an assurance that there will be early action concerning, for example, the raising of the age at which fireworks may be bought, or the introduction of stiffer penalties for those shopkeepers and others who infringe the provisions? Will he also consider those fireworks which, according to the consultative document, appear to lead to most accidents, with a view to banning them?

Mr. Alan Williams: My hon. Friend is right in pinpointing the fact that we now seem to have two fairly clear options available to us. The first is to go for a complete ban of retail sales and have only organised displays. The second is to go for a package of measures which may further reduce the rate of accidents. It is in order to establish precisely what is available in the second package that I am meeting the retailers tomorrow, before I make a final decision. I have already had initial discussions with the manufacturers. Although there has been a massive fall in the number of accidents, from over 2,400 in 1968 to 896 last year, we hope that there will be a further fall this year and that by the action we shall take, as a result of these consultations, we shall still further reduce the number in the following year.

Miss Fookes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if fireworks were a new device, no Government would consider allowing them for general sale to the public? Will he give a short snappy answer, like "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Alan Williams: In reply to the hon. Lady's second question—"No". I understand that she wants a similar short, snappy reply to her first question, but the matter has to be considered on its merits. The inspectorate has responsibility and ample power to stop the retailing of these products in cases where it considers that they present a particular danger to the public. There are, at present, certain imported fireworks which are virtually in bond, because the inspectorate will not allow them to be distributed.

Price Marking

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will seek powers to make the Price Commission responsible for the approval or otherwise of manufacturers' recommended retail prices and their display on the product.

Mr. Maclennan: Manufacturers' recommended prices are not enforceable on retailers. The Director General of Fair Trading is considering the problem of claimed reductions from a recommended price.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend not think it totally illogical for his Department to be concerned with regulating wholesale prices but to have no regulatory powers over retail prices? Is he aware that the overwhelming opinion throughout the country is that products for retail sale should be stamped with a maximum recommended price? If that were done the shoppers would have some idea what is meant when manufacturers print labels with the announcement of a reduction of so much off the maximum recommended price. Will he now come to some conclusion about making it meaningful for manufacturers to print notices announcing so much off the price?

Mr. Maclennan: A number of points are involved. First, our price controls are directed to the prices actually charged and to the firms which charge them. Wholesale and retail margins fall within our controls.
I agree with my hon. Friend's point about misleading recommended prices. This matter is being considered by the Director General of Fair Trading, who is looking at the opinions which have been put forward following publication of a consultative document. My hon. Friend's suggestion would amount to reintroducing retail price maintenance, or would have a similar effect.

Mr. Atkinson: No, it would not.

Mr. Maclennan: I think the consequence would be to the disadvantage of the consumer. It would mean that the maximum price stamped on the item would be that which did not drive the small corner shop out of business.

Petrol Prices

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what representations she has received from the oil companies concerning the price of petrol; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: None, but I have had representations, which I am considering, from retailers' associations.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the stupid price and gimmick war goes on, and that it has now reached ridiculous proportions? Surely now is the time for her to tell the oil companies to regulate the price of petrol according to grade, and to stop these stupid gimmicks, which only increase the price of the product?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: First, I assure my hon. Friend that the major oil companies are ceasing their policy of selective discounts from the end of this month.
Secondly, we are urgently considering the possibility of a further reference to the Monopolies Commission.
Thirdly, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, we are considering inquiries into the level of wholesale prices for petrol.

Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that the various gimmicks which have been put out—for example, 7p off, 5p off and 4p off—have really misled the public? Sould not garages show the actual price which the purchaser is being charged, and not take a certain amount off an unknown figure?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: As was indicated in reply to an earlier Question, these matters are being urgently considered by the Director General of Fair Trading. At present there is no legislation, and we do not have the power to say to what price the reduction refers. However, we are making urgent inquiries into the matter. I should point out that the consumption of petrol in August was 7 per cent. below the figure for August 1974. This situation is leading to garages cutting each other's throats in an effort to stay in business.

Public Houses

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will take steps to ensure that prices are displayed in public houses.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am happy to tell hon. Members that I made an order under Section 4 of the Prices Act 1974 today which comes into operation on 1st December. The order, which commands wide support in the trade and from consumers, is expected to be laid and published next Monday.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. As there are bitter feelings amongst many customers at the variation in price levels, not only between public house and public house, but between different customers during the evening, will he give maximum publicity to the order?

Mr. Alan Williams: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct in stating the public alarm at this matter. I think that he will be aware that in a survey carried out for a Midlands authority it was found that in 66 per cent. of the public houses visited there was overcharging and that in some instances the overcharging was by as much as 50 per cent. above the brewers' recommended price. At the risk of boring the House with further statistics, I would add that we believe that this order will cover approximately 95 per cent. of all drinks sold in public houses.

RAIL ACCIDENT (LUNAN BAY)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith (by Private Notice): Mr. Buchanan-Smith (by Private Notice) asked the Minister for Transport if he will make a statement about the rail accident at Lunan Bay.

The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): Yes, Sir. Shortly after 11 a.m. on Sunday 26th October 1975, the locomotive of the 10.15 a.m. passenger train from Aberdeen to London broke clown between Montrose and Arbroath. At about 12.28 p.m. a locomotive going to the assistance of the train struck the rear coach at speed, severely damaging it.
I regret to inform the House that, according to my latest information, one


passenger was killed and 40 people were taken to hospital of whom 15 are still detained. I am sure the House will join with me in expressing condolences to the bereaved and best wishes for a speedy recovery to those who were injured. An internal inquiry is being held by British Railways and there will be a public inquiry which will be conducted by Major C. F. Rose, an Inspecting Officer of Railways. The date and place of his inquiry will be announced shortly. It would not be proper to make a further statement until the inquiry is complete.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I join with the Minister in his expressions of sympathy for the family of the young mother who lost her life in this accident and for the injured and their families.
I wish to pay tribute to the rescue workers involved—firemen, police, doctors and hospitals and railwaymen. I have been in direct touch with those involved and there is no doubt that the rescue operations were efficiently and properly carried out. Those on the spot told me that the accident could have been very much worse but for the grace of God.
I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances about the setting up of an inquiry. The accident has certain unusual features in that a relief engine was proceeding to a known location where another train had broken down. Will the Minister give an assurance that the two matters to which I shall refer will be covered by the inquiry? Was there, perhaps, a failure in communications concerning the place where the train had broken down? Secondly, was there, by some horrible coincidence, a second mechanical failure on the relief train as well as on the original train? Will the Minister also assure the House that the inquiry will be held in public?

Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the remarks he has made about the emergency services. It would be wrong for me to anticipate the results of the inquiry, but I am sure that it will cover the matters he has raised.

Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister accept that the accident could have been very much worse, although that is no consolation for the loss of life and the distress caused to those who were injured? I was on the spot within a couple of hours

of the accident occurring, and I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the speed and efficiency of the rescue services—the fire, police and ambulance services—and all who helped them yesterday, who can be proud of the work they did. Will the Minister see that the investigation is speedily completed to ensure that a similar accident never again occurs?

Dr. Gilbert: I only wish that I could give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that accidents will never happen again. Alas, it is not within my power to do so. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that the casualties could have been much higher than they were. The fact that they were kept so low was no doubt in considerable part due to the speedy reaction of the emergency services, to which the hon. Gentleman also paid tribute.

Mr. Grimond: The Liberals, too, would like to be associated with the regret expressed, the tributes which have been paid to the emergency services and the condolences to those affected. It is believed, rightly or wrongly—perhaps wrongly—that on this important railway line the equipment is somewhat out of date. Will that matter be covered either at the inquiry or in correspondence with British Railways?

Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I am sure that the point he has mentioned will be taken account of in the inquiry.

MOTOR VEHICLES (IMPORTED TYRES)

Mr. Anthony Grant (by Private Notice): Mr. Anthony Grant (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the use in this country of large numbers of imported tyres which are unsafe to use on motor vehicles.

The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): Existing legislation prohibits the sale and use of unsuitable tyres whatever their origin. I am having investigations made into the reports which have appeared in the Press and elsewhere over the weekend.

Mr. Grant: I am grateful to the Minister for answering my Question at short notice. Is he aware that, ever since the


matter was first raised in 1973, there has been grave disquiet among the motoring public about the danger to life caused by these shoddy goods? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to report to the House the result of his inquiry into the Press reports which suggest that 5,000 killer tyres from Germany are being sold to British motorists? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the existing regulations are adequate and capable of being enforced? Rather than rely upon these regulations, would it not be better, in conjunction with the Department of Trade and our EEC partners, to consider banning these dangerous goods at source?

Dr. Gilbert: I am aware of the 1973 incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As far as I am aware, that was an isolated case, and very substantial fines were levied upon those responsible for the offences involved. I am personally satisfied with the current regulations. There will always be people who breach any regulations. I shall be happy to examine the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about the possibility of co-operation with our EEC partners and other ways of tackling problems of this sort. The reports are a salutary warning to everyone not to shop around to get very cut-price tyres at risk to their lives.

Mr. Bidwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that Japanese-made tyres are fitted on some British Army vehicles? Has he any reason to believe that some of those tyres may be sub-standard or defective when the vehicles take to our roads?

Dr. Gilbert: I am not aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers. There were certain allegations about Japanese-made moped tyres with alleged poor road-holding ability in wet weather. My information is that those allegations were not substantiated. If my hon. Friend has any evidence of a breach of regulations of any sort I shall be happy to look into it.

Mr. Fox: The Minister may well be satisfied with our regulations, but does not this show up a weakness in our relationship with our partners in the EEC? Bearing in mind what the Minister was doing last week about drivers' hours—with which the Opposition agree—will he use all his influence to stop this trade? It is incredible that one partner should export to another partner inferior goods of this type.

Dr. Gilbert: I am not sure that I entirely agree with all the hon. Gentleman's assumptions. I am grateful to him for his remarks on drivers' hours. Under the regulations in this country, if a tyre is manufactured to a certain degree of safety and speed and found not to meet those requirement there is nothing improper in selling it, with due knowledge given to the trade and the end purchaser that it is for use in less demanding conditions. The hon. Gentleman's reference to trade with the EEC is a red herring. The regulations make it an offence to sell or fit a defective or unsuitable tyre. These are fortunately rarely breached.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move,
That the salary of the Secretary of State for Social Services should be reduced by half.

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon).

Mr. Fowler: The background to the debate is a crisis within the National Health Service. Apart from the disputes which have occurred over the past month, even more fundamental problems arise. Lack of resources means that new hospitals cannot be built, that much-needed extensions cannot go ahead and that new equipment cannot be bought. Lack of resources means that medical staff are working in conditions that no one can consider ideal and that are often blatantly inadequate. Lack of resources means that nurses who finish their training are unable to find posts in the hospitals in which they have trained, not because they are not needed but because there is no money to employ them.
Let us be clear. These problems will not suddenly be cured, and it is no part of the Opposition's case to suggest that in the present economic crisis this position will be quickly changed. Regrettably, all the signs are that the position will get worse. Once again, we are dealing with the familiar problem of inflation, and inflation which should have been tackled months earlier by the Government. That inflation has stopped progress dead.
When we talk of resources within the National Health Service we are talking not merely about physical resources such as new buildings and equipment but about human resources—namely, hospital staff, including nurses, doctors and consultants. Our case against the Government is fundamentally directed at how the Government have managed these resources. The truth that we should recognise first is that the National Health Service has been kept going because of the devoted work of those working within it. If their morale is eroded, the service is put at risk. That is exactly what has taken place over the past 18 months. By the right hon. Lady's own admission, the result is that there is now widespread demoralisation.
The reasons for the demoralisation are not difficult to discover. One of the chief reasons is the overwhelming irrelevance of what the Government are doing. Let us take, for example, the manner in which the Government have handled agency nurses. These nurses fulfil a vital rôle within the service. They help staff hospitals which find it difficult to attract nurses because they are unable to offer accommodation or because the accommodation locally is expensive and poor. They help to staff crucial specialist units, such as intensive care units, where the work is particularly exacting. Those are units which sometimes find it difficult to find staff. Agency nurses provide an invaluable reserve of experience.
Faced with this situation, what has the right hon. Lady done? She has issued a circular aimed at eliminating the use of agency nurses within the service. The Government are implementing that policy by deliberately reducing their pay, a step which is not even favoured or supported by those who support the general policy. At a time of unprecedented inflation the Government have reduced the pay of the agency nurses. Of course that policy is having its effect. It is true that it is eliminating the agency nurses from the service. It is doing so for the very good reason that many of the nurses concerned are leaving the nursing profession altogether and taking other jobs.
How does the right hon. Lady justify that situation? In her circular she simply says that she
appreciates that a short-term risk may have to be accepted to achieve the longer-term aim.
I know of no responsible body of medical opinion that believes that that short-term risk is justified.
Even more worrying is the position within the medical profession itself. In that sector the evidence of a collapse of morale is visible for all to see. Disputes have escalated and, worse than that for the long-term future of the service, more and more doctors are considering the prospect of a career abroad.
The exact figures of medical emigration are notoriously difficult to obtain. The Department's figures operate rather like the presumption of death procedure in that only when a doctor is missing abroad for two years is he presumed to


have emigrated. Even on the Department's figures, over 300 British doctors are emigrating per year. That is bad enough, but the indications are that the trend is increasing, A forward indicator is the number of doctors expressing an intention to emigrate to the Overseas Bureau of the British Medical Association in London. The figure is now up to 80 a month. If even half of those doctors put that expression into effect, we shall be in serious trouble.
What is the emigration picture? First, I think we can all agree that many young doctors are now taking their American qualifying examinations as a matter of course and that more young doctors are now considering the prospect of a career abroad than ever before in our history. Secondly, I think we can agree that not only young doctors but senior registrars and consultants are leaving. They are not merely leaving London but are leaving other provincial centres such as Birmingham. That is clear from the results of a survey in the Birmingham Post. Thirdly, I think we can agree that some specialties are particularly affected. According to the Director of Radiology at St. Mary's in a letter to The Times, in the past 18 months 23 senior registrars and eight registrars have left from London for posts abroad.

Mr. Eric Heffer: Where to?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) will say a little more about that when he addresses the House. To put the matter at its most moderate, we are faced with a serious question of medical morale. It was for this reason that we welcomed the principle of a full-scale independent inquiry into the service. It not only allowed the current and underlying—

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

Mr. Fowler: Not now. It not only allowed the current and underlying problems of the service to be examined but enabled there to be a breathing space. Goodness knows, a breathing space could hardly have been more urgent. The dental and medical professions were united in their desire for such an inquiry provided that it was able to examine the

Government's proposal to abolish pay beds.

Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the doctors who he says are now going abroad are going to America where they can get much greater pay? Of course that could apply to any other profession in the country. Is this patriotism? Is this putting the interests of the ordinary people first, or is it an example of what Dr. Coggan said—namely, that we suffer from those who look for material gain at the expense of ordinary people?

Mr. Fowler: It ill becomes any of us in the House to give lectures on patriotism to doctors in this country who have worked with devotion for years for the service under very poor conditions. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Heffer: Why are they going? They have had their training here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This must not become a sedentary shouting match.

Mr. Fowler: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that the position as regards salaries in America has been the same for many years past. What is worrying is that in the past 18 months the position has deteriorated. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept that he will accept absolutely nothing.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Bogus!

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman said earlier in his speech that there were no figures on emigration—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair has no responsibility for what an hon. Member says provided that he uses parliamentary language. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is making a great deal of noise.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) is irresponsible.

Mr. Fowler: It is a great pity that the case of the Government back benchers is so bad that they have to resort to such tactics. We supported the Royal Commission, but we said that it should include the Government's proposal to abolish pay


beds. It is that policy which has been elevated by the Government to represent their central health service policy. That policy lies at the heart of the gathering dispute between the medical profession and the Government. It is that policy which has aroused the overwhelming opposition of the medical profession. I would not have thought that that was a matter of any dispute.
The medical profession says that there should be a fundamental review and that pending the conclusion of the review the Government should postpone their pay bed policy. What is the point of having a Royal Commission when the Government intend to press ahead with the issue that is causing most of the trouble? The right hon. Lady has responded with a call to the doctors to give a year to Britain. The Government are very keen on telling other people to give a year to Britain, but when it comes to postponing their plans for 12 months there is a deafening silence. If the Government want a sacrifice, let them set an example.

Mr. John Cronin: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that three years ago there was an exhaustive investigation by a House of Commons Select Committee into the whole subject of private practice? Why does he wish to go into that matter all over again?

Mr. Fowler: But on pay beds we are told by the Government that this is a solemn pledge of the Labour Party which is so firm, so fundamental, so loudly proclaimed that no delay of any kind can be contemplated. That, in essence, is the Government's case on this issue. Yet when we turn to the October 1974 Labour Party election manifesto, we read that Labour
…has started its attack on queue-jumping by increasing the charge for private beds in National Health Service hospitals and is now working out a scheme for phasing private beds out of these hospitals.
That is hardly a declaration of policy that can stand no delay.
Perhaps at the last election the Labour Party campaigned in the constituencies on this issue? Not a bit of it. Most of the leading members of the Cabinet in their election addresses forgot to tell the electorate that this was a fundamental part of Labour's policy. So fundamental

was the policy that the Prime Minister forgot to mention it, as did the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and, most surprisingly, the Secretary of State for Social Services. However, she told the good people of Blackburn quite a number of other things. She said that unemployment was "levelling off" and that the Conservatives and Liberals were "itching" to restrain wages by law with all the injustices that that produced, and she declared that "it must not happen again". But of pay beds there was no mention. What she did say was that Labour's policy was based on "conciliation, consultation and consent". If the Government policy towards the medical profession is based on conciliation, consultation and consent, I sincerely hope that we never reach confrontation. If the right hon. Lady believes those words, let her demonstrate, not by her words but by her actions, conciliation, consultation and consent. Let us hope that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission will contain those words.
The Press has not been unstinting in its praise of the right hon. Lady's handling of the situation, but we must make up our own minds. Furthermore, there is one policy which by any measure is even worse than that of the right hon. Lady. The Labour Party conference voted last month not for separation but for the complete abolition of private practice inside the National Health Service and outside it. That vote gave a tremendous fillip to medical morale and increased confidence no end in the medical profession! But it had one effect, in that it led to the intervention of the Prime Minister, who set up a Royal Commission and also put on record the Government's commitment to the right of private practice. Indeed, so great was the Government's commitment that he said that he was prepared to legislate for it. It is equally true that the original policy on pay beds was enshrined in legislation and that succeeding generations of doctors have relied on it. But let us leave that on one side. What is significant about the Prime Minister's statement is that it defines the debate. It rejects outright the policy of the Labour Party conference and sets down that what we are arguing about is not whether private practice should conetinue but how it should be organised.
How do the Government propose that private practice should be organised? The aim is the creation of a separate private health service—or, to put it in the conciliatory words of the Secretary of State, the aim is to remove the
canker of commercialism at the heart of our National Health Service.
However expressed, the right hon. Lady is seeking a fundamental change in the National Health Service. As a joint delegation of medical and dental professions put it:
The issues at stake are of greater importance than any since the formation of the original National Health Service.
What, then, do the Government mean by their policy of separation? Do they mean a complete divorce of the National Health Service from private service? Not exactly. Generally private patients will be banned from National Health Service hospitals, but National Health Service patients will still continue to use private hospitals. As I am sure Labour Members are aware, 3,000 beds are provided in the private sector for the use of NHS patients and that contract arrangement will continue. Like pay beds, it is an example of sensible co-operation between the two sectors.
Does Government policy mean that all private patients will be banned from NHS hospitals? Again, not exactly. British private patients will be banned but those born abroad will be able to come here for treatment for which they will pay and to choose their own consultants. Does the Government's policy mean that the paying principle will disappear for British patients in National Health Service hospitals? Again the answer is, not exactly. If one is lucky enough to obtain an amenity bed and can afford £21 per week—and many people cannot afford it—the paying principle will continue.
But these are just details. What about the central aid? To use the right hon. Lady's words, the aim is to get private medicine
to stand on its own feet".
Whether or not one agrees with Government policy, this is a fairly startling and original way of explaining what is intended. It is true that the private sector will be allowed but it will be licensed not only for quality, but for quantity as well. The Government intend to establish a licensing system to control the

total volume of private provision for medical care. The aim is to ensure that the total provision does not exceed the total provision inside and outside the NHS in March 1974.
In other words, if the new service shows signs of flourishing and developing, it will be prevented. Development is to be deliberately restricted by the State, and what will be restricted with it is the normal freedom of the citizen to spend his own money in the manner he wants. The truth is that private provision is to be rationed, and the Secretary of State claims that all she is doing is to enable private medicine
to stand on its own feet".
It is a policy that is wrong in principle and, most of all, ludicrous in practice.
Let me give an example of this policy. Let us take as an example the Manor House Hospital, Hampstead, an excellent hospital in the private sector. It is run by the Industrial Orthopaedic Society. Its members already make their contribution to the running of the NHS, but they choose to pay extra from their own pockets for extra service and indeed for quicker treatment. It is a sensible scheme, backed by management and trade unions. Last year the trade unions sent £12,000 to that hospital in direct donations. Therefore, its credentials are impeccable.
What is the effect of Government policy in regard to that hospital? If Manor House wanted to expand it would have to seek permission, but if total provision had exceeded the Government limit, it would be stopped. If another group wanted to start a similar scheme, it could go ahead only if the Government gave permission. I repeat that the right hon. Lady says that all she is doing is getting the private sector
to stand on its own feet".

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is making great play of the three "c's", conciliation, consultation and consent, on the part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Will he spend two or three minutes dealing with the "Barber cuts", which represent another "c"?

Mr. Fowler: I thought that I had been fair in respect of the general economic climate in which the NHS is trying to


operate. I am not trying to say that Conservatives in some magical fashion are trying to transform the situation. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier he would have heard me deal with that matter in opening the debate.
Let us come to the practical effects of the abolition of pay beds.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose—

Mr. Fowler: No, I cannot give way again.
The Government must provide answers in this debate. The right hon. Lady knows that the pay beds compromise is often the only way at present that private practice can be exercised. If the pay beds go and the private sector is not allowed to develop, consultants will be deprived of that opportunity. Some undoubtedly will go abroad, but others will stay and seek a full-time contract.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady will say how that contract is to be financed, for already the BMA is receiving reports of consultants who, by their own wish, want to go full time and who have been told that there is no money to finance such a move. Does the right hon. Lady intend to make extra money available for this policy? If she does, how does she justify such a policy when by preserving the present compromise that same money could be used to employ extra nurses, and in a hundred other ways?
In our view, pay beds in hospitals represent a sensible compromise which operates above all to the benefit of the patient—and it is, after all, his interests that are paramount in all our debates. It is a compromise which is valued by the medical profession. It enables the consultants to work in the same hospital with the same support team, and it brings in much needed income to the health service. The charge that the Department levies can now be over £35 a day. Surely, of all times, this is not the time at which to turn our backs on that income.
I urge the Government to look at the organisations which oppose them on this policy: the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College

of Surgeons, the Royal College of Nursing, and the administrators. All are opposed to Government policy here. All they are asking is that the Government should postpone action until the Royal Commission reports. Surely that is not an unreasonable request. Surely we can seek that breathing space while an examination takes place of the fundamental problems inside the National Health Service.
Surely there can be some agreement between the parties on what is needed. Our aim is to encourage our doctors, consultants, nurses and hospital staff not just to give a year for Britain but to devote a career, a lifetime, to Britain. Inflation has halted our plans for the time being, but I believe that medical staff accept this. It would make it easier to accept if the Royal Commission were seen to be examining the future of the National Health Service—how it runs, how it is organised, whether extra resources can be brought in, and the place of private practice.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes rose—

Mr. Fowler: These are important issues—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Nearly 40 hon. Members wish to speak, and one of them is the hon. Gentleman who is trying to interrupt.

Mr. Fowler: These, I think both sides would agree, are important issues. In principle the Government have the support of the Opposition in setting up a Royal Commission and, as I understand it, they also have the support of the Liberal Party. All they are being asked to do is to make a concession, to postpone action on pay beds and to postpone action on the agency nurses. If the Government do not make this concession, I believe they will be missing an outstanding opportunity of restoring medical morale in this country and will bear a heavy responsibility for the future.

4.3 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): The motion before us this afternoon is a very interesting one. I gather from my researchers that it is probably unique in regard to the size of the cut proposed in


my salary. I am grateful to the Opposition for this distinction, which I find very flattering. I only hope that I can continue to merit the importance that they attach to me.
The speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has been predictable. It has been predictable, first, because he has raised a number of issues causing controversy, and it was quite right that he should raise them. I shall try to deal with them all in my speech. Secondly, and equally predictable, the hon. Gentleman has tried to insinuate—I cannot use the word "substantiate"—that all the current crisis in the National Health Service is due to me. I only know that the hon. Member had to make some justification for the swingeing attack which he has proposed should be made on my already frozen remuneration.
I find the Opposition's myopic self-satisfaction, as reflected in the motion, a bit of cool cheek. If anyone wants to disqualify himself from making a serious contribution to the debate, he will do as this motion does and as the hon. Gentleman did, and insinuate that the current troubles of the National Health Service—and it has some real troubles—began when the present Government came into office and I took over this job in March 1974. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman has not been making that case in his speech, perhaps he will withdraw the motion, because in that case his speech is obviously incompatible with the motion on which the House is asked to vote tonight.

Mr. Norman Fowler: It is absolutely clear that the right hon. Lady has written her speech without even bothering to listen to what I have said.

Mrs. Castle: It is equally clear that Opposition Members will try to prevent the House from listening to what I am intending to say. That is why we shall have this barracking.
If we want to reach useful conclusions about what is wrong with the National Health Service and how to remedy it—and I thought that was the whole purpose of this afternoon's debate—we have to begin by admitting, as The Times did in its leader on 21st October 1975 entitled
Clear thinking in the NHS

that:
The Government is not really to blame for the long-term problems that have so greatly undermined morale.
Therefore, I am not to blame either.
I can tell the House what were the three things undermining morale seriously when I took over at the Department of Health and Social Security. The first thing that everybody said to me and my hon. Friend the Minister of State when we walked into the premises was "Morale has never been lower in the National Health Service". I was given three reasons—[Interruption.] I shall merely repeat every sentence that is drowned by hon. Gentlemen, so they will not obviate the necessity of listening to my speech.
They gave me three reasons—and by "they" I mean the deputations that were lining up to see me from the BMA, from the nursing profession, from the radiographers and from the ancillary workers as well as others interested in the welfare of the National Health Service. The first reason that all these people gave me for the collapse in morale under the previous Government was that the rewards of everyone working in the National Health Service had fallen seriously out of line as a result of our predecessors' statutory pay policy. I shall return to this.
The second reason was that the reorganisation of the National Health Service, sired by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), had caused widespread disruption and uncertainty—to say nothing, incidentally, of the expense. Never let us forget that we are talking about the financing of the National Health Service. We took steps to make concessions in prescription charges, which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield tried to insinuate this service could not afford. Never let us forget that the transition to this elaborate new structure brought in by the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor cost the National Health Service a once-for-all payment of £9·5 million in 1974–75, and is now adding £4·5 million a year to the service's administrative bill.
Some of that money goes on trying belatedly to democratise the service through the addition of the Community Health Councils. Some of it goes on its professed aim of improving management.


I only know that, in the innumerable talks that I have had with representatives of the medical profession, one of the things they have repeatedly raised with me is that, under this new four-tiered structure, a few doctors are up to their eyes in committee work, while the rest feel more remote from management than they have ever done before. This is confirmed by the University of Hull's illuminating study of reorganisation on Humberside, which I advise every previous supporter of the reorganised system to read.
Of course all changes cause some disruption, but it is remarkable how ineptly the previous Conservative administration handled the three major reorganisations for which they were responsible—the NHS, local government and water supply. There is hardly anyone with a good word to say for any of them.
The third cause of the low morale which I inherited was lack of money. When I took over my job, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Lord Barber, had just cut the health and personal social services programme by £110 million, involving an almost complete moratorium on major schemes, and the Conservative Government were obviously planning further swingeing cuts. It is interesting to note, in view of recent cries about the under-financing of the National Health Service, that the medical profession took those Conservative cuts very calmly even though they would have reduced spending on the NHS in 1974–75 to £3,756 million—in real terms at 1974 survey prices—compared with the £3,860 million approved by this Government. Of course we actually spent another £750 million to cover pay and price increases, as I shall explain in a moment.
Finally, there was widespread dissatisfaction amongst both consultants and junior doctors with their contracts. I was confronted with demands that they should be renegotiated, and I was prepared to try to do that by agreement even though the previous administration had refused to look at these discontents and anxieties.
Faced with this complex situation, we had to work out a balanced strategy. First and foremost, it was essential to correct the gross inequities in pay which

had been caused by our predecessors' statutory pay policy. The sense of grievance that this had caused had inflamed all who worked in the service, from consultants to kitchen staff. But we had to do it in an orderly way so that the disengagement from statutory pay policy—which in my election address I promised that we would undertake and which we did, keeping that promise—did not become a stampede. That is why we felt it necessary to resist the demands backed by industrial action to make interim payments to nurses and radiographers—and a fat lot of help we got from the Opposition.
But the Halsbury Committee had the time which I gave it by this resistance to an interim policy successfully to complete its reviews, and nurses, radiographers and the rest got their biggest ever increase in pay in the first independent and searching review of their pay ever undertaken in the history of the NHS. Later the ancillary workers caught up, and in April of this year consultants, GPs, junior doctors and the corresponding groups of dentists were given a substantial award—from 30 per cent. to 38 per cent.—by their Review Body. True to the Government's promise, which I repeated to the medical profession time and time again in the difficult months of waiting, the Government accepted the award subject only to the cut-off which had operated in respect of top salaries.
I believe that it was essential to relax pay policy at that time in order to enable these fundamental adjustments to be made. Without it there was no hope of peace in the NHS. But it was expensive and, for a time, another cry of alarm went up. Some health authorities actually thought they would run out of money because they said that their allocations were not big enough to meet these massive pay increases and the sharp rise in prices that took place last year. But once again the talk of "crisis" was falsified. The Government made an extra £750 million available through Supplementary Estimates so as to inflation-proof the NHS. This meant that last year the percentage of gross national product devoted to the NHS rose to 5·4 per cent., the highest figure in its history.
We had put people before buildings, as we had said we would. But that


meant that we could not restore more than part of the capital cuts which Lord Barber had introduced—only £30 million of them. It also became clear that inflation had become the biggest enemy of the NHS and that the priority had to be switched from the adjustment of pay grievances to the containment of the inflation that threatened the country's whole economy.
Hence the negotiation of the new voluntary pay policy: the £6 limit and the cut-off at £8,500 a year. I wonder whether the House realises what a remarkable victory that was for patriotism and common sense. Look at the people who have been accepting it: powerfully placed people like miners, steel workers and power engineers. Even those few unions which voted against the policy are not defying it. Already, as the Price Commission has pointed out, the policy is beginning to have its effect on price increases.
The prize is a dazzling one. Imagine what it will mean to everyone in this country to halve the inflation rate. Imagine what it will do for the morale of the NHS. But I have had a lot of experience in operating pay policies, and I know that any crack in it soon becomes a yawning gap. Human nature being what it is, everyone watches everyone else like lynxes to make sure that if anyone else gets away with a breach of the policy, the rest will do so too.
That brings me to the junior doctors. On this subject, the only comment that I can make about the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is that he reminded me of the dog who did not bark in the night. We did not have the great leadership on this issue that we were told in the Press that we were to get. Where was it? It is in moments like these, when the NHS is threatened with a serious and a widespread industrial dispute, that we can test a politician's honesty, courage and consistency. We tested the hon. Gentleman today and found him wanting on this issue.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and the House know that if the Government were to try to reach a settlement of this dispute—on which the newspapers have been conducting this sustained attack upon me to which the hon. Gentleman referred—by allocating additional money

above the pay policy limit, that policy would be in ruins in a matter of months. Newspaper after newspaper has admitted this. Even the Daily Mail, in a leading article the other day, castigated the industrial action by some juniors as
both unjustifiable and irresponsible".
It added:
Under the £6 pay limit there can be no special cases.
Why does not the hon. Gentleman have the guts to get up and say so as well? I ask him to tell the House where he stands.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The Secretary of State is asking the Opposition whether we support industrial action. The answer is that we do not support it. That is a point that I have made in this House before, and it is a point that others of my right hon. and hon. Friends have made. But it is a point which the right hon. Lady and her supporters never made when they were in Opposition.

Mrs. Castle: That last statement by the hon. Gentleman is as inaccurate as most of his previous statements. Will he now tell the House whether he supports a breach in the pay policy?

Mr. Fowler: No, I do not.

Mrs. Castle: That being so, will he now get to his feet and say to the doctors "This is a breach in the pay policy"?

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Lady really is not listening. We have made this clear. We have said this in the House and on the media and my hon. Friend will be saying it when he winds up the debate. So the right hon. Lady cannot get away with that. For her of all people to talk about courage in this matter is laughable. She and her party have the worst record in history on this issue.

Mrs. Castle: But I thought that the purpose of this debate was to enable us to analyse the problems of the National Health Service and to try to establish who was responsible. Therefore, why did not the hon. Gentleman say what he thought about this this afternoon, when he created his own opportunity? We dismiss him as the contemptible coward


on this issue that he is on so much else.

Mr. A. P. Costain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct for a right hon. Lady to call another hon. Member a contemptible coward?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Any reflection of a personal nature is not in order. I am sure that, in the heat of the moment, things are said which are not intended and that the right hon. Lady would like to withdraw the word "coward".

Mrs. Castle: I will do that. I merely say that I think that the hon. Gentleman suffers from unattractive timidity. Now—

Mr. Ian Gow: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Lady has not withdrawn. Should she not withdraw that remark?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Lady followed long-established custom in the House in finding other words that were not unparliamentary.

Mrs. Castle: I intend to use the opportunity provided today to look at the junior hospital doctors' dispute, because this is one of the genuine crises and problems now facing the National Health Service.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Made by the right hon. Lady.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman says that it was made by me, but his Front Bench spokesman did not have a word to say about that. I hope that my answer will be listened to so that the facts can penetrate the hon. Member's mind.
I regret this dispute as much as anyone in the House, and I would say this to the juniors—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: You provoked it.

Mrs. Castle: —"No Government more than this one recognise the devoted contribution that you make to the NHS or are more anxious to improve your conditions steadily and systematically." It was the Labour Government—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Humbug.

Mrs. Castle: "Humbug," the right hon. Gentleman says. Instead of bellowing, the hon. Gentleman should listen and try to let some new thought penetrate that unhappy mind of his.
It was the Labour Government who in 1970 first introduced the principle of extra duty allowance for the juniors who did such long hours and a Labour Government who in 1974 implemented the reduction in the hours at which those allowances became payable to 80 a week. Of course, that position is still unsatisfactory. Junior doctors' hours of duty are on average just under 86 hours a week, although just under half of those hours are spent on standby or on call, and of course these long hours should be reduced.
Last May, the juniors found in me a ready listener when they asked for a new type of personal contract which would clearly set out a junior's commitment in each case and include, in place of the extra duty allowances, payment for all units of medical time contracted for above their standard hours.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No.

Mrs. Castle: The principles of that new contract, which have now been negotiated—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Castle: No. It is obvious that I could not expect any sense—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Give way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady does not give way, the hon. Gentleman knows that he should not persist.

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castle rose—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Castle: The principles of that new contract, which have now been negotiated, mark a vital breakthrough for the juniors in their conditions of work. But it has all along been agreed with the juniors' negotiators that the pricing of the new contract would be done by the Review Body, their own independent body, and that each side would be free to give all the evidence about the costing of it that they thought fit.
By the time that a new contract came before the Review Body in July, the Government had announced their new pay policy and inevitably, therefore, had in their evidence to maintain that any settlement involving new money on top of the 30 per cent. increase in salaries that the juniors had had in April and on top of the £12 million already being spent annually on extra duty allowances would be contrary to that policy. The Review Body accepted this constraint. Hence its proposed redistribution of the available £12 million which has caused so much dissatisfaction, because re-routing the extra duty allowances to finance the new supplements from 44 hours means that, in the Review Body's estimate, about one-third of the junior doctors will be worse off while one-half will gain.
All this was known to the junior doctors' representatives when they met to consider this new deal on 2nd October. In full possession of the facts, the juniors' representatives voted, albeit reluctantly of course, by a massive 49 votes to nine in favour of the deal. That they later had to repudiate their agreement is well known, but let no one be in doubt that the leaders and representatives accepted that even with these limitations the new contract made a big breakthrough for them.
Of course, I understand the feelings of those who find themselves worse off—

Mr. Michael Morris: On that point—

Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, I must get on because I have had so many interruptions. If I try to hurry up, the hon. Gentleman may have a chance to get in himself.
But the new contract structure was one which the juniors asked for. I have never sought to impose it, nor do I now. I am ready to explore any ways of overcoming the present difficulties within the money available. I told them that I am willing to see their negotiators at any time. I have been waiting to hear at what time they would like to meet me. I was ready to ask the House to excuse me this afternoon so that I could go and meet them now, but I have now heard that they want to see me to fix a meeting for Wednesday of this week, and of course I have agreed.
I have suggested, as one option, that the implementation of the new contract could be postponed until April, and could then include a "no detriment" clause which would be financed out of money available to doctors for their next pay settlement under the counter-inflation policy. This would, of course, have to be put to the Review Body. But this is not the only course. I have not shut any door. I have made it clear that changes could be made in the distribution of the existing money so as to deal with the problem of "no detriment" provided always that the total sum was not exceeded, and again subject to the Review Body.
If the profession has anything fresh to propose in relation to distributing the existing pay bill so as to introduce the new contract in the way which it believes is fairest and most acceptable to its members, we shall of course be very ready to discuss it. It is going ahead with a ballot of its members. In the meantime I can only remind the House, and the doctors, that the spread of industrial action, unofficial and linked to a welter of conflicting aims and explorations, is causing great inconvenience to patients and may well, before it is through, cause serious hardship.
That is the first crime that I am sup posed to have committed—my loyalty to the Government's pay policy. What are my other crimes? Suddenly, once again—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop rose—

Mrs. Castle: —we are deluged with sensational headlines about crisis in the NHS—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Under the rules of order of this House, it is quite as much in order for a Conservative Member to try to intervene in a Minister's speech—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for telling me the rules of order. I am doing my best to observe them.

Mrs. Castle: The successive interruptions mean that I am having to take up more time than I would wish.
What are the other crimes? Suddenly, once again we are deluged with sensational headlines about a crisis in the


National Health Service. Morale, we are told, has collapsed. Doctors are said to be emigrating on a record scale, and British graduates, we are told, are no longer coming forward for training in surgery. Standards are supposed to be falling through lack of finance, and the Press is stopping at absolutely nothing.
The Daily Telegraph even carried the story—[Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to listen and judge. The Daily Telegraph even carried the story that a patient had died and two more had been brought near to death at Hillingdon Hospital due to the shortage of nurses, and, despite a detailed and factual refutation by the senior medical staff at the hospital, the district nursing officer and the area health authority, the paper goes on repeating the story.
All this has been remarkably orchestrated, reaching a hysterical peak during the week of the Conservative Party conference to provide an appropriate backing to the speech of the hon. Gentleman. In other words, it has been designed to help him play politics with the National Health Service just as he has been doing this afternoon.
Indeed, the campaign has reached such obscene lengths that some of those who have genuine anxieties about the NHS have become alarmed. They know that continuous talk about the destruction of morale can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is no doubt why Sir Cyril Clarke, President of the Royal College of Physicians, called a Press conference earlier this month to dismiss the emigration scare as exaggerated. Of course, as he rightly said, there are no grounds for complacency. As I told the House before, it takes time to check whether intentions to emigrate are carried out, and it may be a year before we can be certain what the current rate of loss of British doctors is and whether it is much up on last year, and, if so, by how much. This has happened under all Governments, but, as Sir Cyril said, we are certainly not faced with the "landslide" that it has suited some people's purposes to suggest we are. Nor are we faced with the crumbling of our nursing services as the hon. Gentleman tried to insinuate. The contrary is the case.
Thanks to the Halsbury award, the wastage of nurses has fallen sharply—

they are staying in posts in their own hospitals, so there are fewer posts to fill; that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point—and the numbers in training are going up. In many areas recruitment has been increased. In Hillingdon Hospital, for example, contrary to the evil scaremongering of the Daily Telegraph, the nursing establishment is up to strength.
Nor is it true that the steps that we have taken to reduce the dependence of the NHS on agency nurses have led to a crisis in certain NHS hospitals.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West) rose—

Mrs. Castle: No. I want to be allowed to proceed with my speech. I am dealing with Hillingdon Hospital, and if the hon. Member concerned would like to question me I should be glad to give way.
It is not true that the steps that we have taken to reduce the dependence of the NHS on agency nurses have led to a crisis in certain hospitals. What the hon. Gentleman does not seem to know is that it has been the policy of successive Governments to reduce the NHS dependence on agency nurses, and for obvious reasons, because it is in the interests of patients to have a stable nursing force. It is not that I have suddenly gone on an ideological rampage. It is that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the simplest principles of patient care.
Does not the hon. Gentleman realise how much patients resented the frequent changes of nurse which they had to face when, as in some London hospitals, one in five of all staff nurses was from an agency? Does he think the patients felt they were getting the proper continuity of patient care? Does he not understand that the steady increase in agency nurses that we were experiencing, mainly in London, weakened the cohesion of the nursing force in the hospital, made the supervision of trainee nurses more difficult and left the regular nurse to carry an unfair share of managerial responsibility?
All those disadvantages have been recognised for a long time by anyone who knows anything at all about the NHS. They have been well recognised by the Royal College of Nursing. The changeover to the new payment arrangement


has gone smoothly. There has been no sudden walk-out of agency nurses, and a number of them have transferred to the NHS. I shall continue to watch the situation and adapt my advice to health authorities accordingly.
There have been improvements in medical staffing, too, in keeping with our priorities. Since 1970 there has been a steady overall increase in the number of doctors working in the NHS in England and Wales, both in hospitals and in general practice. Up to September 1974 it amounted to a rise of 11½ per cent. Firm figures since then are not available, but the provision of quarterly returns up to June 1975 shows further gains at well over 2 per cent. for senior hospital staffs for the nine months. In view of the concern that has been expressed this afternoon about emigration, it is encouraging to note that the improvements of previous years are being maintained.
As the years pass, a higher proportion of these increases is coming from the increase in output of our own medical schools since the Labour Government's decision, following the Todd Report, to build the new medical teaching complex at Southampton, which has been followed by Nottingham, whose first graduates emerged this summer, and Leicester, whose first intake started this autumn. Whatever financial difficulties we face, my hon. Friend and I will continue to give this expansion of medical school intake a high priority.
It is a travesty to suggest that the NHS is breaking down. Why are we getting all this latest talk about catastrophes? Some of it, of course, is engineered for political purposes, but some is genuine. There is, of course, the hang-over from reorganisation to which I referred earlier. One of our difficulties in dealing with this is that even the supporters of that reorganisation are now beginning to question it. What is one to make, for instance, of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), who supported the new four-tier structure of his right hon. Friend my predecessor in the 1970–74 Parliament and who in the columns of Hospital Life in August told us and the devoted men and women who are trying to make this structure work that we ought to abolish one of the tiers, probably the regional tier? What kind of effect does the hon. Gentleman

think that has on the morale of the service? And he tries to censure me tonight for my handling of the NHS. I should not dream of doing anything as irresponsible as his casual gesture, and again I indict the Opposition Front Bench for being out of touch with the NHS.
The House knows that the Labour Party officially opposed the system of reorganisation proposed by our predecessors. None the less, we on the Government side would consider it irresponsible, and immensely damaging to patient care, to try to reverse that structure in the cavalier way in which the hon. Gentleman tosses off his reforms. A lot of people are now giving a lot of time, energy and devotion to making the new structure work, and it would be wrong to halt them in mid-course by suggesting that they are wasting their energies because they are about to be reorganised once again.
What we want to do is to work out with them how a better system of management might gradually evolve and how we can immediately streamline some of the administrative costs of reorganisation. I think that the Royal Commission can help us with our longer-term aim, but meanwhile we must—and I do—give these people the assurance that, unlike the hon. Member for Reading, South, we are not proposing to drop the regional tier or to make any sudden, drastic change in any of the tiers. Within this general assurance, we shall back them in seeking the maximum administrative economies in consultation with the staff concerned.
The second reason for crisis talk is that we have all begun to realise the financial limits on the development of the National Health Service. The sky is not the limit for this or any other public service, particularly in the tough economic situation that we face in the next few years. However, before we get too tragic about this, let us realise that this has always been so. In 1955, for example, the share of GNP allocated to the National Health Service fell to 3·6 per cent., but that was under a Conservative Government, so there was no great outcry by the hon. Gentleman's friends then. Since 1964 the National Health Service's share has risen steadily till it reached the exceptional peak of 5·4 per cent. last year. We have been clocking up the steady advances


in medical and nursing staff to which I have referred and in other facilities.
The reductions already announced for 1976–77 by the Chancellor in his Budget speech in April will mainly be borne by capital spending. We do not intend to reduce National Health Service spending in the current financial year, despite pressure by the Opposition for swingeing cuts. We have deliberately chosen to put the cuts on the capital side and not the services side in order to avoid as far as possible any interference with existing services. It is true that the recent growth is likely to be checked in the next few years as part of the Government's need to curb inflation and restore our economic strength.
Again, however, do not let us exaggerated. In the current year we are allocating well over £4,500 million to the National Health Service—an immense sum by any standards. Of course I should like more and could use more with great benefit to the National Health Service, and I shall fight for the health service's rightful share of public expenditure. But to talk of the service collapsing with levels of expenditure like these is sheer scaremongering.
There is, of course, one thing that has changed over the past few years—

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: Per haps the Secretary of State will tell the House how many wards have been closed in the last four weeks because of—

An Hon. Member: The doctors' strike.

Mrs. Chalker: —not by the doctors' strike, but because the wards cannot be staffed by agency nurses under the Secretary of State's circular and because there are not enough other nurses of sufficient calibre who can take care of the patients.

Mrs. Castle: I am interested that the hon. Lady supports agency nurses. I shall repeat what I said earlier. We are watching the situation closely. There has been no disruption of the kind that she has suggested as a result of agency nurses walking out and the rest of it. I shall have a careful check made with my Department, and my hon. Friend the Minister will give the hon. Lady a specific answer this afternoon. It would be

wrong of me to give her a specific answer until I have checked up. I shall have a check made and the House will be told the answer later in the debate.

Mr. John Tomlinson: Before we get too many crocodile tears from Opposition Members, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that according to DHSS statistics there has been an increase in the last decade of 100,000 nurses in the National Health Service?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, there has certainly been a consistent increase in the number of nurses and doctors. We shall give precise figures, in answer to my hon. Friend's intervention, later in the debate.
One thing that has changed over the past few years is the public's expectation of what should be comprised in the words "health care". Every day the public hear of dramatic new breakthroughs in medical science, skills and technology, sophisticated new operations such as transplants, new forms of treatment and new drugs, and naturally they want to share in them. People's standards have risen. It it this which is putting new pressures on the National Health Service and has led some people to declare that we had better recognise that we can no longer provide a comprehensive system of health care through the National Health Service.
This is really the nub of the hon. Gentleman's attack this afternoon. All this talk of phasing out pay beds is irrelevant, he claims, because what we ought to be concentrating on is getting more resources for health care in any way we can. Of course this separation of the two problems is completely in keeping with the hon. Gentleman's political ideology.
The hon. Gentleman does not see this pressure on resources as a problem we have got to try to solve together, collectively, as one nation. He sees it as an alibi for those who can afford to do so to buy themselves out of the dilemma. He wants more private practice and more queue-jumping. This philosophy was never better expressed than by his own leader in those ringing words at the Conservative Party conference:
We don't accept that if everyone cannot have choice, no one shall


I know that hon. Gentlemen accept that, but the right hon. Lady said it in the context of the argument about phasing pay beds out of the NHS. In so doing she revealed that she is totally out of sympathy with the concept on which the NHS was founded—its aim of providing comprehensive health care for everyone as part of their birthright as citizens of a civilised nation. Of course the fulfilment of that aim has become more difficult, but that is true everywhere.
No Western country today can deliver a completely comprehensive system of health care to its people—not even the United States, which spend so much more than we do on health care. When I visited the United Slates last Easter I discovered, for example, how much the Americans admired and envied the family practitioner service of the National Health Service. I was told that under their system, however much money was poured out on private insurance schemes, it was not possible to get a doctor to visit a patient in his own home. If a child fell ill in the night and was running a high temperature and the doctor was telephoned, he would tell the caller to wrap the child up in a blanket and bring him round to the doctor's surgery.
Therefore, every country faces the problem of priorities. It is just a question whether the priorities should be medical priorities or financial ones. We believe that we should establish medical priorities. Of course it is difficult, but what neither the right hon. Lady nor the hon. Gentleman begin to realise is that just because times are tough the right to buy scarce skills inside the National Health Service, which by definition cares for and belongs to the nation as a whole, becomes intolerable.
Increasing numbers of patients and of National Health Service staff see the defence of pay beds for what it is: the endorsement of the principle of inequality in health care. That today leads on inexorably to a growing intrusion of private money into the provision of health care. It is the beginning of the end of the concept of the National Health Service. Some of the Press are beginning to let the cat out of the bag. As the Daily Telegraph put it a few days ago,
Nothing but deep surgery can put matters right. At the root of the matter is this Socialist insistence on free and equal medical care.

So it is clear that we are talking about a fundamental political principle: not whether we can afford to lose the £24 million estimated revenue from pay beds this year—not, incidentally, the £40 million that has been widely talked about in some places. After all, £24 million out of a budget of £4,500 million will not make the difference between our ability or otherwise to deliver a comprehensive system of health care. The hon. Gentleman conveniently goes silent on the fact that in return we shall be acquiring over 2,500 beds for National Health Service use, as well as the exclusive use of the staff who have been servicing them. This represents the bed complement of four or more district general hospitals, and the capital cost of providing them afresh today would be some £70 million. We can dismiss that argument. What divides us is a fundamental point of principle, and that is why it must be decided by Parliament and not by the Royal Commission, because, as The Guardian put it,
Royal Commissions should not be expected to take political decisions.
But what the Royal Commission can do—and, I hope, will do—is to examine how we can use the large budget of the National Health Service better and guide us as to how we might use it more effectively. That is what my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have been giving so much of our time to since we came to office.
There is no doubt that even with its present resources the National Health Service could provide a more comprehensive and cost-effective level of health care. Great improvements and savings could be made by identifying best practices and then universalising them. My hon. Friend will be returning to this matter in his winding-up speech tonight, because it is the real answer to the problem that we face. We have not only to choose the right priorities, such as, for example, the expansion of primary care and the emphasis we are laying on the development of health centres, but we must use our money more effectively. We have already found, by the initiatives we have taken, that this can be done. The Royal Commission can help us here.
To return to pay beds, I am anxious to introduce this policy in a planned and reasonable way which will help the patient to have access to private treatment outside


the National Health Service if that is what he or she prefers, and in a way which will recognise consultants' anxieties. That is why I proposed a system of licensing, not as a sinister first step to the abolition of private practice but because I want to have the means to encourage the fairest possible distribution of private practice throughout the country to give the maximum freedom of choice.
Moreover, we are already aware of a number of proposals for large-scale developments in the private field which could do enormous damage to the NHS and so to the overwhelming majority of the medical profession itself. I mention just one example—the proposal for a 500-bed centre of excellence, as it is called, in the Bristol area. It would draw its patients from a wide catchment area, being placed at a strategic point on the motorway, but it would obviously recruit most of its nursing and ancillary staff locally, with consequences for the local NHS hospitals which must surely cause all of us anxiety.
These are the sort of problems that I want to discuss with the medical profession, without preconditions of any kind. I want us to try to reach agreement on the best way, from everybody's point of view, of dealing with the situation which will arise when pay beds are phased out. If the professison can convince me that the way I propose is wrong and damaging, I shall be glad to consider other ways.
However, I repeat again, as I have done many times, that our policy is not to abolish private practice, and, as I have told the BMA, we intend to re-embody the existing right to private practice in the legislation that we propose to introduce. So much for the hysterical nonsense about "the watchtower, the searchlight and the Berlin Wall".
I therefore reject with contempt the accusations that have been made against me this afternoon. And I say to the Liberals, who have now apparently joined in the hue and cry—I say it to the Leader of the Liberal Party—that Lloyd George would be ashamed of them. As Frank Owen points out in his biography of their greatest man:
Lloyd George had a far livelier and longer struggle with the doctors before the First World War than even Aneurin Bevan did after the second one.

Nye Bevan was not exactly a hero to the doctors either. We remember some of the violent abuse that was heaped on him. In proposing to phase pay beds out of the NHS which he created, I am completing the work he began, by removing
the defect in the Service which was seen from the beginning
as he himself used to describe pay beds in his book "In Place of Fear". When Nye had established the NHS after a long and bitter battle against misrepresentation and prejudice, he described it as
a triumphant example of collective action and public initiative.
It is that collective action which we on the Government side of the House will be voting to defend tonight.

4.56 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I do not normally take part in National Health Service debates, and I declare my interest as a doctor's wife. It is not my intention to make a party political speech. I speak today because I am so deeply concerned by the deteriorating situation in the National Health Service, which I see, if I may say so, at much closer quarters than do many hon. Members.
I must say at the outset that nothing that the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State has said today alleviates my fears in any way, and the manner in which she has said it causes me greater anxieties still. There is a crisis in the National Health Service. There is a crisis of cash and a crisis of morale. There is also a wide variation of effect in what is going on.
I am glad to say that in some areas, particularly perhaps in Scotland, where I have been in touch—covering a considerable percentage of our population—the situation seems less serious than in some other areas of the country. There is, of course, a difference of structure in Scotland, and it may be that we have the better structure. But there is anxiety, for example, in one area where a growth factor of 3½ per cent. per annum is to be reduced to 1½ per cent. in real terms. I am assured that even with these restrictions there will be sufficient money to pay the nurses. I notice that the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State did not tell the House that in


some hospitals the cost of the nurses is equal to as much as 80 per cent. of the total hospital expenditure. That is a fact about which many of us rejoice, but it is a fact that must be faced.
However, further inquiry as to how this restriction would affect the area concerned revealed that the nursing staff in the area is much under strength. I was told that certain hospitals were grossly understaffed. Of course, one can make reduced financial provision suffice if the money available is needed to pay fewer people than are required. That is a factor which must always be taken into consideration in the running of any hospital.
The NHS is a labour-intensive institution, to a greater degree than most. When money runs short it may not be quickly obvious, and it certainly is not as particularly obvious to the patient, and where staffing is below establishment it takes longer to become apparent. But, of course, if major economies have to be made they almost certainly have to be made by cutting staff, and because there is a high turnover rate in nursing staff it is, therefore, easy for the administration to require cuts in nursing staff, and this it does.
Moreover, successive financial masters have not recognised some things upon which the right hon. Lady did not touch—the great changes required to keep the standards that we have at present in the—admittedly welcome—face of shorter working hours; increasingly complex medical requirements; and, last but by no means least, new ward design.
If, for example, there is only enough money to pay less than the absolute minimum number of nurses required, a ward has to be closed. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) raised this point, because I intend to say a few words about it. There is a problem of major difficulty concentrated in that decision alone. If, for example, geriatric services are to be reduced, acute beds are likely to become blocked by long-stay patients. If then a medical ward is closed, does the medical staff for the remaining wards continue to be employed to the best advantage? Indeed, do they get their own training? Is it in the economic interest of the service and of the country that this should happen? I can give the right hon. Lady details of at least one hospital where in

new ward blocks of over 200 beds only 50 can be used because there is no money to pay the staff who are available to service the rest.
It is totally untrue to suggest that the medical services are working as fully as they can and it is equally untrue to suggest that financial restriction is not very real. "People before buildings", the Secretary of State said. She should view these matters with a clearer eye.
Again, as I have said, inevitably as each ward closes and those remaining get filled up with long-term geriatric cases and the adequate training for hospital doctors becomes reduced, so it moves from physician to surgeon. It is likely that a medical ward—I will not go into the details—will be closed before a surgical ward, but it follows that if one is reduced and the training facilities are reduced, so the Royal College responsible for the training—be it of surgeons or of physicians—will have to withdraw its recognition of that hospital for the training of surgeons or physicians. Thus, doctors are withdrawn and standards fall.
Meantime—here is a point of rare agreement with the Secretary of State—bureaucracy has established itself to an overwhelming degree. I entirely accept that neither political party can excuse itself from this fact. It is absorbing skill and time which would be far better used, as it was intended, in patient care.
Numbers will be given and can be given, certainly in nursing terms, of the effect of part of this bureaucracy. I know of instances where 30 nurses are now required full time on administrative work where previously 10 were used. I know of more than one case where 10 are now required instead of three. Cumulatively this is tragic for the National Health Service. It is tragic and it is also expensive.
For the doctors it is also tragic because it means long hours, endless meetings and the inevitable frustration of a dedicated doctor being thus prevented from following his vocation and his whole life interest which, although this seems to have been forgotten, is to heal the sick.
This aspect is perhaps more pressing on senior doctors, but the junior doctor sees his senior and he knows that he will soon become a senior himself. The juniors' problems are well known, but


I do not believe that they are just as the right hon. Lady described them. There is a total misunderstanding about the problems of juniors and about the problems which they in turn create for the wider doctoring staff. I will leave that to others to deal with. I undertook to make a short speech and I have tried to keep within factual limits.
I shall conclude with the only party political point I intend to make. The right hon. Lady recently offered £5 million to cut waiting lists. How utterly absurd to suggest that the cutting of waiting lists demanded this degree of priority. Was it given to cover the fact that we have now reached a stage in many places where acute illness cannot be treated? Or is it right to enable a full establishment of nurses who could be made available to remain unemployed when it would take approximately an extra £100 million—I do not say that this is a limit and I recognise that it is a lot of money—to have nursing establishments brought up to strength for the whole of the United Kingdom?
If that is what is required, I ask the right hon. Lady in conclusion: be it £24 million or be it £50 million, is this the moment to reject that from pay beds?

5.6 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: The right hon. Lady the Member for Renfrewshire East (Miss Harvie Anderson) made some very interesting comments about the problems of the nursing staff in the National Health Service. Her speech was a much more sincere speech than that made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), who gave an excellent demonstration of the new Conservative Blackpool philosophy—the naked pursuit of inequality for its own sake. The hon. Gentleman spoke for about half an hour and practically three-quarters of that time was devoted to the subject of private practice, to the interests of those with sufficiently large incomes to pay for personal separate treatment.
I have nothing against private practice. From a personal point of view, I am rather in favour of it, but I think that a responsible Front Bench spokesman should at least have some consideration for the great mass of the people for

whom the National Health Service has to work—people like, for example, unfortunate cleaning ladies who have painful bunions and who have to wait for two years for treatment because they cannot get any higher on the waiting list, people with all kinds of painful and disagreeable diseases who have no substantial incomes.
We did not hear a word from the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield about people such as those. We heard only about private practice for the privileged members of society. This is typical of a great deal of the Opposition's thinking.
It would be wrong for any hon. Member to feel or to express any complacency about the present state of the National Health Service. For the first time we have had industrial action by junior hospital doctors or by doctors at all. There is no doubt that the morale of the consultants as well as that of the junior doctors is impaired.
I, being a consultant surgeon, cannot help meeting and talking to large numbers of consultants. There is no doubt that they feel considerable dissatisfaction with their work and with the general state of affairs in the National Health Service. There are some signs of deterioration in the treatment of patients. I admit that this is a purely subjective judgment. However, professionally I am often called upon to treat or to see people who have been treated within the service and I gain the impression that standards of treatment have dropped to some extent. This is a purely subjective opinion and I may be wrong, but one must give one's impression.

Dr. M. S. Miller: My hon. Friend says that he mixes—unfortunately, to some extent, although I do not want to impugn him—with consultants. Does he agree that the disgruntlement among consultants often is because the demi-god-like posture that they adopt has been tarnished and they can no longer lord it over people in the way that they did?

Mr. Cronin: As I have said, I am a consultant surgeon, but I was not aware that I adopted a demi-god-like posture or lorded it over anybody. There is no doubt that there has been a diminution in morale among consultants, and we should try to discover the reasons for it.
I am satisfied that there is no question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State being in any way responsible for the diminished morale. There was considerable discontent in the National Health Service when the Labour Party took office in February last year. Much of the discontent—which has spilled over this year—resulted from the reorganisation carried out by the Conservative Government. This was the damnosa hereditas which my right hon. Friend had to take over. There was grave discontent among the nurses about pay and conditions of work.
I am Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Confederation of Health Service Employees and, as my right hon. Friend knows, I had quite a lot to do with the negotiations which took place with her. She behaved with conciliatoriness and generosity on every occasion. There was no question of any confrontation. The pay of the nurses, who were previously the badly treated members of the service, has been increased. It is natural that the junior doctors do not see why they should suffer from similar injustices. It is bad luck for them that just when public opinion is in favour of their having greater remuneration, the £6 pay freeze has been introduced.
It must be accepted that until recently the National Health Service was run on the cheap and at the expense of the people who work in it. It has been run on the cheap at the expense of the nurses. That situation has been largely put right by my right hon. Friend in carrying out the recommendations of the Halsbury Committee. It has been run at the expense of the junior hospital doctors who live under conditions which would have caused the raising of eyebrows among plantation owners in the Deep South at the time of slavery.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about junior doctors working an average of 86 hours a week That means that some of them are working 120 hours. That is slavery of the worst type. Last year the Government started to put matters right. It was the present Government that ensured that due consideration should be given to the junior hospital doctors' grievance.
What action should be taken to overcome the problems of the National Health

Service? One of the most effective actions taken in the last few months has been the setting up of a Royal Commission. Until now there has been no careful study of the service in depth. That has been a loss to the service. There have been four large-scale investigations into education—the Robbins Committee, the Newsom Committee, the Plowden Committee and the Crowther Committee. They have been extremely helpful and have enabled successive Governments to put right a lot of what was wrong with education. I should have thought that the setting up of a Royal Commission was the most helpful action which could be taken for the National Health Service.

Mr. John Page: Is the hon. Gentleman urging the Secretary of State to include that part of her consultative document dealing with private practice within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission?

Mr. Cronin: I am not urging that, because I have a great respect for this House. Perhaps it passed over the hon. Gentleman's head, but three years ago a Select Committee of the House made a report consisting of hundreds of pages on private practice. It went into the whole matter in depth and with the greatest care. Why must it be gone through all over again? It has been decided that pay beds must go. That has been the Government's policy since February, and it has been carefully considered by a Select Committee. It would be absurd to inflict on the Royal Commission the need to investigate a matter which had already been thoroughly investigated. This matter needs to be dealt with in the next few months. It cannot wait for the report of a Royal Commission.

Mrs. Chalker: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the main recommendation of the Select Committee's Report was that there should be no change—not that we should pursue the line which the Secretary of State is following?

Mr. William Hamilton: Against all the evidence.

Mr. Cronin: We should not accept that report, because the Select Committee divided on party lines. The whole matter has been carefully investigated and all the arguments have been put forward. This


country must be governed by the Government, not by Royal Commissions or Select Committees. However, such inquiries have the important advantage of focusing public attention on all the issues.
Something must be done at the earliest opportunity to allay the fears of the junior doctors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that she would meet them very shortly. Presumably she will meet only their negotiators. Recent events have suggested that communications between the junior doctors' negotiators and the junior doctors are not very good. The doctors have been rather poorly represented. It would therefore be helpful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement after the meeting indicating to the junior hospital doctors throughout the country that they will have better treatment once we are out of the era of the £6 limit. They deserve it. It should be possible for my right hon. Friend to make a statement which would receive wide publicity to allay their fears.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke of the fears of the consultants about the question of pay beds. We must get it into proportion. Only a very small proportion of consultants use pay beds. The suggestion that this is a burning issue and that the consultants will dash on the Palace of Westminster and burn it down simply because pay beds have been abolished is absurd. Nevertheless, that small proportion represents some of the leading members of the profession and their point of view must be treated with consideration and respect.
There should be no compromise on the principle of abolishing pay beds. I think that most people, except those with somewhat reactionary views, agree that it is wrong that there should be two standards of treatment in hospitals—one for the general public and one for those who can afford to pay more. This is a nonsense which should have stopped a long time ago.
When the National Health Service was inaugurated by the late Aneurin Bevan, it was agreed with the doctors that there should be pay beds. That provision was in the founding charter of the NHS. It would not be right suddenly to snatch this concession away without providing compensation. Consultants gaining profit from

pay beds should be met with patient negotiations. That applies to most of the top members of the medical profession. I refer to the members of the Councils of the Royal Colleges and to those leading members of the profession who make use of pay beds. It will not help the NHS if pay beds are abruptly eliminated without consulting the people concerned. This is a matter for patient negotiation and compensation for those whose financial interests are affected, provided that the principle that pay beds should be abolished in the near future is accepted without compromise.
It was suggested that consultants are afraid that private practice will be abolished. It is not possible to abolish private practice in Britain. Or, rather, it would be possible only if one could ensure that no United Kingdom resident received a passport without a water-tight guarantee that he would not receive private treatment abroad. People can go abroad for private treatment anywhere. It would be an intolerable infringement of the freedom of the individual if we stopped private practice in Britain. However we must not become so excited on the subject as the Opposition as this problem affects a small number of people with ample means.
There are anomalies in the remuneration of consultants and doctors. Some Government supporters think that consultants are overpaid. However, there is a world market price for the work of consultants. It would be unrealistic not to face that fact. It is common to charge about £200 for a major operation under the system of private practice in Britain. The same surgeon would perform six such major operations in an afternoon in the National Health Service and receive £20. I refer to senior consultants. It is easy to say that they are overpaid.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: What about America?

Mr. Cronin: Doctors receive more in America and France.

Mr. William Hamilton: At the expense of the patient.

Mr. Cronin: There is a market price for surgery. It may be disgraceful and distasteful, but the world is imperfect. There is a market price for medical treatment. Attention must be paid to that


market price when paying NHS doctors. There are grounds for increasing the pay of consultants.
There is an absurd situation over the remuneration of general practitioners. A general practitioner who avoids as much work as possible, who sends his patients to the hospital no matter how trivial their complaints, who avoids treating his patients whenever possible, receives more pay than a general practitioner who cuts his work to an amount which he can comfortably do, who takes a responsible attitude, who treats the patient himself, and who buys the best possible equipment. These are the economics of Alice in Wonderland. They are absurd. I trust that as a matter of urgency the Royal Commission will look into the ridiculous situation of general practitioners' pay.
There are happier signs in the present situation. For instance the British Medical Journal, the doctors' official publication, suggested last week for the first time that doctors might well consider giving up their long-cherished and fiercely guarded right to prescribe whatever treatment they considered proper irrespective of its cost effectiveness. A doctor, whether in a hospital or in general practice, has in effect a cheque book on which he can draw on the Treasury to an almost un-unlimited extent. Doctors, whether in hospitals or in private practice, can prescribe without hindrance drug A, which costs so much, or drug B, which may have exactly the same effect but cost 10 times as much. Drug B will probably be more attractively packaged and advertised and yield a far greater profit to the pharmaceutical company.
There will be very little suggestion of cost effectiveness in the NHS as long as doctors insist that they have an absolute right to prescribe what treatment they like. That applies to many aspects of medical treatment, including the hospital treatment. Often patients who are moribund are given prolonged treatment at enormous cost which will do them no good and will not affect the result. It may sound inhumane to withdraw such treatment from them. But that treatment has always been given to them at the expense of the treatment to other patients. There is a strong case for a more cost-effective attitude towards medical treatment. It is an encouraging sign that the medical profession is aware of this problem.
There is another cause for the impaired morale of the NHS. The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State can do nothing about it. I refer to the constant denigration of the NHS by the Press. Nearly every day there are newspaper items indicating that conditions in the NHS are deteriorating to a catastrophic extent. Most of such items are untrue. The speech by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield embodied a similar degree of irresponsibility. The doctors and nurses of the NHS are devoted to their professions and by and large are not concerned about their remuneration provided that they earn a decent living. It is for Parliament to give them every help and encouragement and above all not to denigrate their patient, hard-working efforts to relieve the sufferings of humanity.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: This afternoon the Secretary of State rightly said that she could not be totally and personally blamed for all that was wrong with the National Health Service. That is not the gravamen of the charge made by the Opposition. That was not argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). If we wanted to assess the ingredient that the right hon. Lady had added to the woes and troubles of the NHS, all we needed to do was to listen to her speech.
If she speaks to the doctors and nurses and their representatives in the shrill and hectoring way in which she has spoken to Members of Parliament, she cannot accuse them of leaving her presence with the feeling that she has a mind that is less than open or fair. Indeed, the right hon. Lady has introduced a unique degree of political venom into the troubles of the NHS. It is typical of the right hon. Lady that when she is being referred to, she leaves the Chamber.
The representatives of the doctors and nurses complain that after they have spoken to the right hon. Lady she says that they are unfair. The right hon. Lady says that she is misunderstood by the doctors, the nurses and the consultants. If anyone is misunderstood on that scale, it is a record.
The trouble is that the Secretary of State has exiled the word "sorry" from her vocabulary. Her treatment of the groups in the NHS and the way in which she deals with them personally have added


to the woes and troubles of the service. When she asked my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield to condemn the action of the junior doctors with warmth and enthusiasm, I hope that she meant the same degree of warmth and enthusiasm as she showed when condemning the action of the miners in 1974. I thought that that part of her speech was humbug.
The question which we must ask ourselves, and which a wider audience is asking in the country, is what is wrong with the health service. The answer is that there is simply not enough money being spent upon it and the country can probably afford virtually no more. In the White Paper published earlier this year we were told that approximately £3½ billion was to be spent on the health services this year. Because of the rate of inflation since January, the amount is probably between £4½ billion and £5 billion, which is an enormous amount. As the right hon. Lady has said, this represents an increase in the proportion of the gross national product spent upon the health service.
However, this money is not sufficient, because the resources are limited. The White Paper said that there would be growth of 2·7 per cent. per year in the health service for the next five years. That is completely out and completely unrealistic. Even with this extra money it will be a struggle to maintain the existing standards of the health services. Everybody knows that that is the case. Indeed, the hon. Member for Lough-borough (Mr. Cronin), who practises in my constituency, made exactly the same point. The House, the Government, indeed the whole country, have to address themselves to how we can maintain and sustain the level of the health services that we have at present when resources are so limited.
At the same time, demand is literally insatiable. Gone are the days of 1946 and 1947 when people believed that if medical sources were freely and readily available, we could virtually do away with waiting lists in a matter of months. We have all learned—both parties and both Governments—since the foundation of the health service that the demands on our health service are almost infinite. We can

see this manifested in the various groups that have become eloquent in the past few years.
There has been, quite rightly in my judgment, an enormous increase in the amount spent upon the mentally ill in the past 10 years, a result of sustained pressure from various interested groups. Indeed, the number of psychiatric day release patients increases at the rate of 12 or 13 per cent. a year. Only yesterday I attended a service in my constituency for people with speech disorders—a group whose particular problems are now being more clearly identified and whose claims are being pressed forcefully and eloquently by one of my constituents, namely, Miss Diana Law, who has had a severe stroke and who suffers in this way.
The demands are insatiable and therefore the country has to ask itself two questions, First—a factual question—how much can we afford? Secondly—a more interesting and political question—how much are we prepared to afford? It would be a rash person who was prepared to say that the country was prepared to spend or afford much more on the health services.
Last week we had a lobby of the teachers and a few weeks before that of the disabled. The conflicting demands upon the public purse are such that it would be much more realistic for hon. Members to admit that the public purse in this connection was severely limited. It would require an enormous and probably unachievable exercise of political will to say that an increasing proportion of the gross national product should be spent upon our health services. Individually, we all know that in our own constituencies we want more hospitals. One wants to improve the services for especially deprived or disabled groups. However, is it politically realistic to say that the State is prepared to spend much more?
I believe that we must face the problem squarely. If the State is not prepared to provide more from its own resources, we shall have to say to the people of this country that we shall struggle to maintain the existing services, but we shall probably not be able to do so, because the nature of those existing services is essentially labour intensive. The reason an extra £1,000 million has been spent this year is


basically to meet wage and salary demands in the nursing and medical professions.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman consider more effective methods of spending such money? Will he think in terms of the work done by Action Research for the Crippled Child in "Care with Dignity", which clearly showed that with effective rehabilitation services people can live at home at the same cost?

Mr. Baker: There is enormous scope for saving within the health services, not only in administration, but in the increase of domiciliary care. There is no doubt that there is a considerable saving in money-terms if pregnancy advice is given in the home rather than in hospital. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
However, the resources we are prepared as a country to commit to the Health Service are and must be limited. Therefore, one has to accept that standards will at least remain the same or will fall, and one has to try to find alternative sources. I believe that one should be prepared to consider this matter with an open mind.
The only substantial sources of money, apart from the State subvention to the health service, are the optical and dental charges and, of course, the prescription charges. It was only a matter of 20 to 25 years ago that the imposition of prescription charges caused the resignation of certain Labour Members. The present Prime Minister resigned with the founder of the health service on this very issue. I assume that the principle of charges has been accepted by the Government as they have not withdrawn them.
We must examine other areas to see where modest charges can be made. I know how politically unpopular such action is, but we must be frank with the people who send us here. We shall not be able to afford a better standard of health services in our country unless we are prepared to increase the resources that are available.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): The hon. Gentleman is making a speech about the economic problems of financing the health service, but he knows that charges are a reduction of personal consumption just as much as taxes are.

Any Chancellor, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, is faced with the overall problem of how much from whatever source of finance can be devoted to the National Health Service.

Mr. Baker: The Minister of State is making the mistake that all economists make: he is looking at the matter globally and loosely, but not personally. Of course it is economically correct that we are dipping into the same pool, but the willingness of people to give money from that pool is improved if they can see an improvement in the services. It is difficult to persuade them that £40 million allocated by the Minister of Slate is money well spent when they can contribute that sum for something that they can purchase, or for part of the service that they can purchase. That is the difference. It is a psychological difference. Once again the Government have to learn to govern with the grain of human nature and not against the grain of human nature.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is not the example of other countries of help to my hon. Friend? No other advanced countries with an equal claim to compassion for the sick as the United Kingdom have seen fit to finance their health services out of general taxation and yet they manage to spend more of their GNP on health.

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend has made an important point. That is one of the factors that help to inhibit the improvement of the health services in our country. I am one of those who believe that the creation of the National Health Service is one of Britain's greatest post-war achievements. I am also realistic enough to realise that we shall not be able to maintain the services in anything like their existing shape without the devotion of more financial resources to them.
I turn to the pay-bed issue. A small amount of money is made available to the National Health Service from pay beds, but nevertheless £12 million, £20 million or £40 million—it depends which estimate one takes—is not to be sneezed at. The Government's policy of separation will damage the health service. The policy of separating the public and the private sectors in this area means simply that the public sector will lose.
I have a letter from a cardiologist in my constituency who operates from St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street. He says:
we are equally on call for Health Service and private patients, both of whom get a much better service than if the private patients were housed in nursing homes scattered around London to which one would have to travel, which would then necessitate far fewer hours presence in the Health Service…In other words, one would be forced to one's contractual hours by closure of private beds attached to a hospital such as this one".
That is the reality of what will happen if we separate the two functions. The Government recognise that will happen. [HON. MEMBERS: "It will not:"] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say that it will not happen, but the Government recognise that it will. As a result, they are introducing a licensing system, which will ration the available resources for the public and private sectors in various parts of the country.
I am on this side of the House as a Conservative because I find such a policy of rationing totally unacceptable. The way that the Government intend to carry out this licensing system, according to paragraph 10 of the consultative paper, could not be more explicit. The paper states: "It"—the private sector—
would not be allowed to make it more difficult to provide a comprehensive national health service by absorbing, either nationally or more locally, any undue proportion of scarce skills achieved by training at public expense".

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Baker: Hon. Gentlemen opposite say "Hear, hear". They ought to recognise what they are saying "Hear, hear" to. They are saying "Hear, hear" to a system of licensing of nursing homes throughout, but based not on the standards and facilities of these nursing homes, but on the right of people to work within them. This is licensing people to work. There is no other work in this country for which one requires a licence from the Government.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Taxis.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is right. [An HON. MEMBER: "Abortion clinics."] Abortion clinics are licensed on the grounds of the medical facilities within them. This is by nature entirely different. It is saying to somebody, "You can work

as a doctor in that area, but not in another area". It is rather different for taxi drivers.
I am strongly opposed to the provision of monopoly State services of this kind. We should avoid them. There should be a mixed economy in the National Health Service as there is in the rest of the economy.
What the medical profession finds so objectionable in the administration of the NHS under this Government is that the boundary between the private and the public sectors is constantly being moved towards the monopoly of State services. The Secretary of State today said, "We will do away with pay beds because that was in our manifesto". The right hon. Lady uses the Labour Party manifesto, as does the Prime Minister, as a yo-yo. She pushes it down when she wants it to go down and she pulls it back when she wants it to come back.
The plain fact is that the right hon. Lady has introduced a considerable degree of political turmoil into the Health Service over this issue at a time when it needs a period of stability. When a public service faces a 25 per cent. rate of inflation, it requires stability in its leadership, not the political turmoil that the right hon. Lady has introduced.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: At least the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) tried to get to the roots of the basic sickness of the National Health Service, which is more than can be said for the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) who opened the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. It was a cheap, grubby and squalid little speech from a grubby and squalid little man.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that those adjectives may be applied to a speech, but not to an hon. Member. I know that he will co-operate with me.

Mr. Hamilton: It was a grubby little speech not worthy of the occasion.
We all accept that the National Health Service, like many other public services today, is suffering from a shortage of finance, capital, and, generally speaking, the crisis through which we are all going to a greater or lesser degree. It is a mistake to assume that the problems of


the health service, or any other service, can be automatically solved by an injection of cash alone. On the contrary, there is much evidence to suggest that the problem of the health service is not how little we spend on it, but the value that we get for the money that is already being spent.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the resources currently being used within the health service are being wasted—not least as a result of its reorganisation by the Tory Government. The health service is choked. Anybody who talks to doctors, nurses, or others actively engaged in the NHS will be told that the service is choked by committees, red tape and paper. I believe that there are 280 doctors within the Department of Health and Social Services dealing with administration. There may be good reasons for that. I should be interested to hear the Minister of State defend having 280 medically qualified people grubbing around with bits of paper within the Department. That number can be multiplied in the various areas throughout the country.

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that reorganisation increased the trend of people qualified in nursing and speech therapy to seek posts as administrators at area or regional level when in fact they should have been encouraged and paid more to use the skills that they had achieved?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman underlines my point. We can all quote examples where it pays better to be in administration than to do clinical nursing. That was the direct result of the Tory Government's reorganisation of the health service. I was about to underline that by saying that recently I read somewhere that it can take as many as 28 committee procedures before a consultant can be appointed. That is an absurdity.
In 1963 the total number of administrators and clerical workers in the health service was between 46,000 and 47,000. In 1973 the number had risen to 73,000 plus. I should like to know by how much that figure increased as a result of the reorganisation of the health service. Of course hospitals need clerical and administrative workers, but, as Francis Cairncross pointed out recently in The Guardian, if we go on as we are, in less than 30 years half the British

population will be employed in hospitals. That is the rate at which the numbers are growing.
The signs of sickness in the health service are there for all to see—shortages of doctors and nurses, lengthening waiting lists, and an undeniable slump in the morale of staff at all levels. All this is happening despite the fact that we are spending a larger proportion of our gross national product on the health service than ever before. The cost has soared from £503 million in 1951—just under 4 per cent. of the GNP—to well over £3,000 million in 1975—nearly 5 per cent. of the GNP.
The Opposition appear to be putting all the blame on the Labour Government for the present malaise. The Secretary of State is being used to some degree as a scapegoat—a bête noire—by the doctors, although by any test all the staff within the health service have had a far better deal from the Labour Government than they have had from the Conservatives.
In my notes for this speech I have one note which I struck out after I heard the speech made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, but I propose to read it into the record. In my view, my right hon. Friend is the wrong person for this particularly sensitive job. She sometimes creates an unfavourable impression, not only among doctors, but among nurses, too, by her strident defence of the Labour Party manifesto—as someone put it to me this afternoon, like a cow that devotedly and calmly delivers its bucket of milk and then proceeds to kick it over. That sums up part of the critical situation in the health service.
I say to my right hon. Friend, to the doctors and everyone else concerned that my right hon. Friend is implementing in her way the policies on which we were elected. The doctors, the Tory Party and everyone in the country must understand that, however imperfect our democratic processes, we have a Labour Government committed to certain policies that we shall not be blackmailed into abandoning; nor shall we backtrack on the commitments we made.
Reference has been made to pay beds, private practice and so on. Even if all those policies were fully implemented,


they would do little to eradicate the fundamental malaise of the health service. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone came to the crux and then shrank away from it, as all our political parties shrink away from it. We must all recognise that some of the original principles on which the service was initiated have proved to be false. One of those principles was that once everyone had free access to all forms of health treatment, nobody would be ill, or fewer people would be ill, and therefore total expenditure would automatically fall. The result has been the opposite. Demands for health care have grown relentlessly since the health service was inaugurated.
For instance, there has been an increase in the number of old people and in the number of mentally ill. The number of people aged over 75 will increase by one-third within the next 25 years. Two-thirds of total NHS expenditure goes on hospitals, in large part to treat the old and the mentally ill. Both those categories are increasing remorselessly and the demand for services for them is increasing in proportion. That has been made worse by the inflation that we have suffered every year since 1945, but more particularly in the past two or three years. Inflation has hit hardest the most labour-intensive industries, of which the health service is a prime example.
There is a limit to the amount of automation that can be injected into the health service. It will always be a service in which personal relations and dedication to work will remain of supreme importance. That dedication by doctors, nurses and ancillary staff has been exploited by all of us ever since the health service was inaugurated. I fear that there is little prospect of more financial resources being made available in the present economic crisis, and we shall have to draw still more on the dedication of those people. I beg the junior doctors to understand that it is in their interests no less than in the interests of everyone else that we should get on top of inflation and they, no less than anyone else, will have to play their part.
The one worthwhile contribution that has come out of the debate is that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was forced to concede that he disapproved of

the unofficial industrial action by the junior doctors and that he approved of the £6 pay limit. That message should go out from both sides of the House. If it does, the debate will have served a useful purpose.
I come to the 64,000 dollar question. Because resources are limited, they must be used more effectively. No Government have yet had the courage to face that issue fearlessly and I suspect no Government will ever have the courage to do so. That aspect was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Lough-borough (Mr. Cronin). There are certain subjects on which one is almost frightened to speak.
Let me give my personal experience. Seven years ago my wife died of cancer. She was in a London hospital. I knew and she knew that she was incurable. My hon. Friend the Member for Lough-borough said that somebody should make a decision whether to divert resources from a person like that to someone whose life could be saved. It is all very well in theory. That is the great dilemma of the politician and the doctor. I know no politician or doctor who would have the courage to say that that decision must be taken and that my wife, or anyone else who is known to be incurable, should be abandoned for the sake of someone whose life can be saved.
The Royal Commission may come forward with a cost-benefit analysis of that kind, but in the ultimate the decision will have to be taken by politicians in the House, and it is not an easy decision to make. We have extremely limited resources and a constantly expanding demand for those resources. It is up to the Government not to lessen their regard for priorities, but to increase their regard for priorities. My right hon. Friend is examining this matter on a regional basis, but she will have to examine it also on a medical basis.
Where there are limited resources and increasing demand it becomes imperative that the possession of wealth shall not gain privilege. The sole criterion of medical provision must be the need for it and not the breadth or the depth of the purse. That is the fundamental philosophical difference between the two sides of the House. That difference has been clearly shown in this and every


other NHS debate in which I have taken part in the past 20 years. It is there. I am afraid that it is unbridgeable, but I think that the public at large will respect the Labour rather than the Conservative approach.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. John Page: In the closing paragraphs of his speech the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) referred to a personal experience in dealing with the agonising medical dilemma of who should be treated and how. The hon. Gentleman raised the philosophical issue and thought that it was up to the House to decide to whom the treatment should be given by the provision of more money for medical services. I believe that such decisions should be left to the medical profession. The members of the profession are closest to the patients and the facilities that are available and they know how they should best be used.
I believe that we are not in disagreement about the need for more facilities for the National Health Service, but are we agreed that there is a totally open-ended commitment? For transplants and other surgery, probably the facilities of the service could be doubled or trebled before every possible facility could be made available to everyone who might be in need.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central removed the basis for serious consideration of his speech when he said "We are a Labour Government. We are here with an overall majority of one." Incidentally, that majority is represented by the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse), who if and when he resigns will make the position even. The hon. Gentleman continued, "As a result of that majority of one, we are entitled to carry out any policy we like whether or not it is hated by the people". Although I did not take note of his exact words, I had the impression that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that irrespective of what the doctors, the nurses, the ancillary workers, the administrators or the patients think, the Government can and will carry out their policy. It is because that attitude is used to back up the Secretary of State in her antagonistic attitude that we find the service in its present situation.
I would not have wished to speak in this debate had it not been that on the day it was announced, and by a pure coincidence, details of three serious shortcomings in the hospital service came in my mail. I believe that the service is crumbling and that it is up to us to see what we can do to try to provide a better service for our constituents and for the country as a whole.
I shall not give the Minister of State the exact details of the complaints and the difficulties of the patients who have contacted me, as that would be an embarrassment and a breaking of confidentiality, but the information has already been passed either to the hon. Gentleman's Department or to the area health authority.
The first matter concerns Mount Vernon Hospital, one of the country's leading cancer hospitals, which is just outside my constituency. Over the past month a constituent of mine has twice been admitted for a serious exploratory operation, but on both occasions he has been sent home on the day before the operation was due to take place, with all the personal and family anguish that is involved.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Are the doctors on strike again?

Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman would be so kind as to listen he might learn something.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: What, from you?

Mr. Page: My constituent was sent home because of the position concerning the four operating theatres at Mount Vernon Hospital. One theatre is used only for skin grafting operations because the authorities dare not use it for other operations. The second theatre is out of action because of a drainage fault. The third is out of action because of an electricity fault. The fourth is out of action because of an infestation of a particular kind of ant which cannot be expelled. I note that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) sits in his place and titters. Does he think it funny that three out of four operating theatres in a hospital should be out of action? He does not seem to think that that is very important.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Of course it is important. It is extremely serious. What is


more serious, however, is that many patients throughout the country are not getting the operations that they were expecting and are having their waiting lists extended because of strikes by doctors. What has the hon. Gentleman to say about condemnation of their actions?

Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman waits for that part of my speech, he will hear what I have to say about the matter. If he intervenes a little less often, I shall get to that part of my speech more quickly.
The reason for the operating theatres being out of action is that, as the right hon. Lady said, we decided that we would spend the money on people and not on buildings and materials. The example that I have cited shows that the policy is already reaping its results.
On three or four occasions another constituent of mine was given a date for an operation which had to be delayed on each occasion. Thirdly, a self-employed removal contractor—those who believe that private practice should be abolished should listen to this—has developed a hernia and cannot do his job. He has been told that he cannot have a consultation for 18 months and that he will have to wait two years for an operation because his operation is considered to be non-essential. The present situation is that it is impossible for him to carry out his job normally. That has nothing to do with the present situation but it is none the less relevant. Perhaps the Minister of State will ensure that his Department lets me have answers to those questions by letter.
The eye unit at the Central Middlesex Hospital at Neasden is being closed because it is unsafe for inter-ocular eye surgery. It is unsafe because of a shortage of good equipment and a shortage of proper facilities. It is rumoured that the unit will be brought to Northwick Park Hospital. Is that in the mind of the Department? If that is so, what will be displaced?
The Bushey Maternity Hospital is a very under-employed hospital on which, sadly enough, quite a lot of money seems continually to be spent in the provision of minor improvements.
I believe that the hospital difficulties in the neighbourhood of my constituency

can be echoed throughout the country. I attribute these difficulties, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), to a loss of morale and a lack of money.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is responsible for electricians, ants, drainage and all the rest of it? Is this the level to which the debate has sunk?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman must have been deafened by the hon. Member sitting behind him, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) who was speaking so loudly. I said that the cause of the trouble flowed from a lack of morale and a lack of money—money to be spent on the proper maintenance of operating theatres and other equipment. There is no doubt that the morale of the National Health Service as a whole would be revolutionised overnight if the Secretary of State were to disappear from office. She has a conflict of disloyalties in her mind—her disloyalty to the sick and her disloyalty to the NHS, both of which are subordinate to her loyalty to her Socialist principles.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harley Street—I should have said the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker)—remarked on the right hon. Lady's hectoring manner, as we know so well having seen her in Committee. A senior distinguished surgeon told me that what offended him most was her patronising attitude. She knew better than anybody else, knew all the reasons and intellectually thought that she was superior.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Male chauvinism.

Mr. Page: I do not think that can be purely chauvinism, because in the NHS there are a large number of female consultants, who are treated as being in a position of equality. The right hon. Lady must be extremely lonely having alienated so many of her associates. She must be about to fall for the greatest indignity in present political life—namely, that of accepting an invitation to lunch with Mr. Cecil King.
I now turn to the position of junior hospital doctors. The White Paper on pay is ambiguous as between its text and the appendix. There must be some way in which staff who work over 100 hours


a week, and whose average working week is 86 hours, can be treated separately. Is there any other group of workers who have been asked by the Government to take a real reduction in wages?

Mr. Carter-Jones: Yes—back-bench Members of Parliament.

Mr. Page: I wonder why this kind of action is called industrial action. Surely this is either professional action or collective action. I object to the words "industrial action" being used when doctors take collective action.
I turn to the question of agency nurses and self-employed nurses in general. I gather that agency nurses comprise 20 per cent. of hospital nursing staff. I should think that that is a reasonable figure. I do not understand why the right hon. Lady wishes to reduce the sum payable to them, bearing in mind an answer which I received from her Department about six months ago to the effect that within a matter of a few pence the remuneration of agency nurses was identical with that of NHS-employed nurses. When we bear in mind that there is no holiday pay or redundancy pay, and the fact that such nurses are self-employed, must clothe themselves and all the rest of it, surely different considerations apply. The whole nursing profession resents the fact that there is this battle against agency nurses, because many nurses know that at one time or another they themselves may not wish to be fully employed in the NHS.
Finally, I come to a letter sent to the right hon. Lady by the consultants and others at Northwick Park Hospital containing a petition asking that the phasing out of private practice as discussed in the consultative document should be considered by the Royal Commission. The right hon. Lady told the House that this subject need not be included in the terms of reference because the Select Committee had already reported and, therefore, such a move was unnecessary. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) calmly said that it would be an affront to Parliament if it were included because all the evidence had been taken.
What surprises me is that the hon. Gentleman should not consider it an affront to Parliament that those recommendations by the Select Committee have

been ignored by the Government of the day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read them."] I have them here and I am grateful for the suggestion that I should read them, because I think that they are important. The report says:
…we have carefully weighed all the evidence presented to us and we are of the opinion that private practice operates to the overall benefit of the National Health Service.

Mrs. Renée Short: Who said that?

Mr. Page: I am quoting the conclusions of the Select Committee, of which, I understand, the hon. Lady was a member, but I may be wrong. The report continues:
We are bound to observe that the criticism of the private sector of the National Health Service was not substantial either in volume or depth and certainly not convincing enough to show that National Health patients suffer materially in consequence.

Mrs. Renée Short: Mrs. Renée Short rose—

Mr. Page: Let me finish what I am saying—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will not keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman. He has already been speaking for 19 minutes, and interventions will only make his speech longer.

Mr. Page: I take your reproof, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a result of interruptions, I have spoken for five minutes longer than I intended. I am coming to my penultimate words.
The existence of private practice may sometimes have a marginal effect on the length of waiting lists, but essentially the problem is due to the overall shortage of qualified staff and facilities. I have quoted the conclusions of the Select Committee which the Government, although they have accepted the evidence as a whole, have refused to accept. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone that the time has come for some kind of hotel payment to be made by patients who go to NHS hospitals. I hope that the Royal Commission will consider that suggestion. If, by making these charges to those who can afford them, one could raise, say, £400 million a year, which is a proper estimate, this would be an opportunity


for a quick injection of further funds into the National Health Service.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that Mr. Speaker acquainted the House earlier with the fact that over 40 right hon. and hon. Members wished to speak. I hope that that will be borne in mind.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Harry Lamborn: I wish to speak with particular reference to the geriatric services. We have not seen a demand for pay beds in the geriatric services, possibly because they would not provide the most lucrative sector of medicine and also probably because they are not exactly housed in our best hospital buildings.
We have over the past two years done something towards correcting the imbalance between retired members of the community and the vast majority of people in general living standards. We still have to go a considerable way in order to bring the services in the geriatric sector anywhere near the provision that we are making in our district general hospital services.
Progress has been made in geriatrics in recent years, but, despite the dedication and devotion of many of those in nursing and in the medical field in this very difficult sector of medicine, geriatrics remains the Cinderella of the health service. While we may all feel that the service needs a larger share of the nation's resources, even a cursory examination of national expenditure on health would indicate that geriatrics is getting a quite inadequate share of the total health service expenditure.
But attitudes are more important than finance in this field. Geriatrics still does not seem to function in the mainstream of medicine. Although plenty of good work is going on all over the country in geriatric hospitals and units, there is still, in the eyes of the public, much of the old stigma of the workhouse and the old infirmary about anything which is labelled geriatrics. There remains a need to identify the geriatric section of a hospital with the main hospital of which it forms a part.
I was for many years a member of the board of governors of a large teaching hospital which took over a geriatric hospital from the local management com-

mittee. As chairman of the geriatric hospital within the group, I was aware that benefits were obtained by the geriatric unit from that association. I was also aware that geriatrics remained very much outside the main life of the hospital. It was necessary to continue to use the old geriatric hospital beds, but this made it all the more necessary to link geriatrics positively with the main teaching hospital.
Agreement was secured some six years ago to provide six geriatric assessment beds in the main teaching hospital. Those beds would have linked the geriatric unit positively with the teaching hospital and would have done much to boost morale. They have still not been provided today. Those with what they consider to be more important specialities within the hospital still seek to confine geriatrics within the walls of the old infirmary.
We must overcome these objections. Geriatrics must be developed as a most important section of medicine in its own right, and the Royal Commission could usefully look at this matter. It could also look at the provision of care for the elderly. Such an inquiry would clearly indicate that we are not making the most sector.
The geriatric hospital must increasingly become the unit to which elderly people are brought for short-term care, enabling them to return invigorated to the community. This probably means that they should enter hospital very much earlier than they do today. The geriatric hospital should be recognised more and more as the place to which old folk go not for long-term care but to be made fit enough to return to their own homes. In my experience, the vast majority of them would prefer to spend their lives in their own homes.
We cannot continue to use an ever-increasing number of long-term beds in hospitals and welfare homes merely to provide long-term stay facilities. The alternative is to provide early positive treatment in our geriatric units. The community should be able to receive and to keep those who are not in need of expensive long-term residential care. This can be achieved only by an extension of domiciliary care and day hospital and day care facilities, with a real and meaningful link between the geriatrician, the general


practitioner and the Department of Health and Social Security.
I know that in making a plea for improved geriatric services I am echoing one that has been made many times before, but this is a plea that need not be made in vain, because a far better adaptation of our resources in the geriatric field, with the provision of good domiciliary care and preventive medicine, could do very much to prevent hospitalisation and to prevent the much earlier need for welfare beds.
I have been attached to what was a pioneer venture, when it started 17 years ago, in demonstrating that the infirm elderly could benefit from daycare facilities. During that period, many infirm elderly who could not have reached the normal old folk's club were brought to the centre once a week. For many it was the only occasion when they got away from their own four walls and the loneliness and solitariness involved. I am certain that over the 17 years that sort of action in itself prevented many of those people having to spend their latter years in hospital or in residential welfare accommodation.
If the Royal Commission could examine in depth the best utilisation of our geriatric services, I am sure that much could be done to improve the lot of many of our old folk and to provide a better service to them without in any way adding to the cost of our rising health bill. It is a sector where I am certain, as I said earlier, that by the intelligent use of preventive medicine and by providing the necessary domiciliary and daycare facilities we can do much to prolong the life of old folk within their own homes and at the same time enable valuable National Health Service facilities in the long term to be devoted to other sectors of medicine.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Lamborn) for speaking for only 10 minutes. I must appeal to hon. Members. I understand that at least three speeches from back benchers each lasted about 20 minutes during the time that I was out of the Chamber. This is most unfair.

6.30 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: May I begin by saying how much I agree with the wise observations of the hon.

Member for Peckham (Mr. Lamborn), who obviously speaks with a great deal of experience in geriatric care.
May I also say at the outset, in answer to some of the strictures which we have heard from Government supporters, that as a Conservative I have been from the very beginning a firm supporter of the concept of a National Health Service providing comprehensive care for all. Indeed, I confess that the happiest years that I have spent in Parliament were when I served as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in the early 1960s under an outstanding Minister, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It was an exciting time, partly because of the right hon. Gentleman's remarkable administrative abilities but also because we were hopefully embarking upon a large programme of expansion in the National Health Service. Yet even then it was clear that there would always have to be tight administrative control, imaginative thinking about finance and a careful watching of priorities if the National Health Service was not to run into difficulties.
The reasons were, first, that we had to recognise that we lived in an age of rising expectations, that the demand for better health care would grow and that a shift to preventive medicine would probably lead, as experience in America has since shown, not to a lesser but to a greater demand for health care since it would reveal hitherto undetected conditions which required treatment.
The second reason was that we could expect, inevitably, not only improvements in existing treatments but the introduction of new techniques which would require ever more expensive equipment.
The third reason was that, although much disease would be eliminated, or at least brought under control, and periods of illness for younger people would be shortened, older people, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) reminded us, would live longer, with the result that the total volume of illness in the community would probably grow rather than diminish.
I thought that the Secretary of State made a very valid point when she said that the troubles of the National Health Service did not begin with her. That is quite right, partly for the reasons that I


have just given and partly because the reorganisation of the service was bound to cause initial difficulty. Nevertheless it is true to say that until about a year ago the NHS seemed to be coping reasonably well. It is true that it had its problems, but it had been getting an increasing share of national resources. Indeed, over the last decade its share of the gross national product rose from 3·8 per cent. to 5·4 per cent. What is more, it had been getting more staff.
I concede that it would be a great mistake, therefore, to believe that the National Health Service has been suddenly plunged into a crisis because of a dispute between junior hospital doctors and the Secretary of State or even because of the political row over pay beds. These mask a deeper crisis over the whole structure of the service and the way in which it is being run and financed.
In any event, the row over the junior hospital doctors should never have been allowed to develop since it is contrary to reason, common sense and human nature to expect some exceptionally hard-working doctors to take a cut in their remuneration at a time when everyone else is allowed a modest increase.
As for the pay beds dispute, with respect to the right hon. Lady, this is not merely irrelevant to what needs to be done to rescue the National Health Service but in the long run it will be highly damaging to standards of health care generally.
It is not just the doctors who object. The leaders of the nursing and midwifery professions have told the Secretary of State that her plans for curbing private medicine would be disastrous if pursued in the present climate of breakdown and distrust. Speaking for myself, I would not go to the stake for pay beds. To me, the far more crucial question is whether it is in the interests of the future of medicine and the health care of our people to restrict the private sector as the right hon. Lady proposes. The pay beds issue is not all that important if private medicine in this country is to be cribbed and confined, because that will mean the mass flight of good doctors and consultants.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Bernard Braine: No. I want to try to keep to the injunction which Mr. Speaker laid upon us. I have quite a lot to say, and I wish to complete my remarks as quickly as possible.
This is not a sudden crisis but one which the Government have failed to see coming for far too long.
Let me speak about the area which I know. It is better for hon. Members to speak about their own areas because here they are in receipt of the views of patients, doctors and professional organisations all the time. Up to about a year ago, complaints about the National Health Service in Essex were minimal. Standards in our local hospitals were high, as the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) will confirm. Now, however, not a week passes without local doctors or their patients appealing to me to draw the attention of the Government to the deterioration of our local services.
Over the last year we have had wards closed for lack of nurses to staff them, and the community health council is now warning that more wards are likely to close. Operating theatres are shut because of the lack of supporting staff. The ambulance service is not operating properly because of a dispute over the London weighting allowance, so that men who do not get the allowance are refusing to take patients to hospitals in areas where their colleagues receive it. Because South-East Essex and Southend are excluded from London weighting, our hospitals are losing technicians, to the detriment of patients.
The Government have known about this for months. In July the situation had become so serious that the Essex Medical Committee felt obliged to draw the attention of the North-East Thames Regional Health Authority to the growing waiting lists of so-called non-urgent cases. I say "so-called" because with some conditions failure to treat in good time will cause more serious problems in future.
In some Essex health districts the waiting time for non-urgent appointments has become as long as 32 weeks for general surgery, 37 weeks for orthopaedics and 31 weeks for gynaecology. In one district general hospital patients have to wait as long as 12 or 13 weeks for an urgent outpatient appointment, and routine new patient appointments are not available at


all in the general surgery, ENT and orthopaedic departments. The Essex doctors claimed that
the backlog is so vast that many of the outstanding cases will never be seen.
What has happened to the National Health Service when doctors know that vast numbers of their patients on waiting lists for treatment will never be seen? That is a matter which should concern the Secretary of State, and it is a charge which should be answered today.
As a result an increasing burden is being put on general practitioners, who are forced to act as specialists in order to determine which of their patients merit urgent or non-urgent appointments, although they know in advance the difficulty in securing even urgent appointments. The Minister of State should know this to be the case since he is a doctor himself.
Not surprisingly, the Essex doctors have concluded that the situation amounts to a breakdown in the National Health Service. [Interruption.] I am speaking purely about my own area; other hon. Members can speak for theirs. It is even more than that: it is an enforced lowering of the standards of health care which made the National Health Service unique in former years. The Secretary of State said—I was glad to hear her say it—that the Government have decided to concentrate on people rather than buildings. This debate should do one thing: remind the Government that the National Health Service is not about doctors or nurses but about sick people.
Let me illustrate what the statistics mean for ordinary human beings. The Minister of State knows of this case because I have put it to him and have not yet had an answer. It is the case of a 10-year-old boy, who might be anyone's son, who has needed restorative ear surgery on his right ear for a number of years. The child appears as a statistic on the non-urgent list and his mother has been told that he will not get an operation for two years. Yet I am advised that the child's general practitioner has treated him periodically for pain and discomfort. One can imagine what the effect of a delay of two years will be on this child's schooling and general health.
I have checked the facts and found that failure to tackle the condition is not

the fault of the hospital concerned. The ENT surgeon is overworked. His operating time is limited because, despite continued requests for an anaesthetist, the hospital still lacks one. He is the only ENT surgeon available for restorative surgery and of the two operating theatres allotted to him only one has ever been available because of shortage of staff.
I could give a dozen more illustrations, some of them far worse and more tragic in their implications, but I shall not presume on the time of the House since every hon. Member knows in his heart that such cases exist in his own constituency and is equally worried about them.
What should be done? I hope that the utmost attention will be paid to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker). Are the difficulties due merely to lack of money? If so, why in Heaven's name precipitate a crisis over pay beds, which bring in between £25 million and £30 million? There are many ways of finding extra money. We could run a national lottery. We could charge for meals in hospitals or for visits to the doctor or by the doctor to the patient's home, as is done in many civilised nations.
If it be objected, as I would expect it to be, that this must be to tax ill health, we could introduce a realistic health insurance scheme so that the nation pays a fair price for health care. What is absolutely wrong, misguided, stupid and in the long run perhaps even criminal is for the Government to say in advance that they will block any extension of private medicine, especially as that might ensure bringing back home many more of the doctors and nurses who have emigrated. At least there would be a chance of remobilising scarce resources. It is right, of course, for the Royal Commission to examine all these and other ideas for attracting fresh resources into the National Health Service and to do so with the closest scrutiny. But there are three decisions which cannot wait upon a Royal Commission moving with customary and majestic grandeur slowly through the years until it finally reports. The situation will not wait upon the report of a Royal Commission. I remember the present Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition years ago, pouring scorn on Royal Commissions because they were a


means of pushing something out of the way, allowing it to be forgotten.
Three things require to be done now. First, the pay bed proposals must be dropped. Certainly these should not be implemented until after the Royal Commission has reported. Second, the Royal Commission's terms of reference should be widened so that it can offer a truly independent judgment about all the matters which are relevant to the operation of an efficient service. Third, it should be asked to make interim recommendations on any matter which it considers merits priority.
I end as I began. I believe in the concept of a National Health Service giving comprehensive care to all. I react with anger to the spectacle of a splendid organisation dedicated to helping the sick and the suffering being driven into the ground by stupidity and political spite—and so will the nation, unless the Government act.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. George Thompson: I shall begin by paying a tribute to the National Health Service. I am glad that no one in this country today need fear sickness or injury as people used to do. I am therefore sorry that the debate is taking place against a background of unrest in the NHS.
I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir G. Braine) that the health service belongs to the people, not to the doctors or the nurses, not even to the porters and not to the politicians. It belongs to the people because it is a national service. It is time we all took that to heart.
I do not believe that the NHS is crumbling. Just the other day I had the pleasure of meeting the people involved in the West Galloway accident service in my constituency, where I could see how the local doctors, fire officers and police and the local community as a whole were engaged in this most useful service for the benefit of those who suffer accidents on the congested A75.
There are several questions which the Secretary of State and the Royal Commission should ask themselves. A principal one is why the extreme discontent concentrated in one part of the United Kingdom rather than another? Why is it

in England rather than in Scotland? I dare say that English Members would wish to inquire why it happens in one area of England rather than another.
The reasons are not far to seek. In Scotland, pay beds are far fewer and their number is decreasing. Private practice is much less common; we have no Harley Street. Agency nurses are a minor issue and the junior hospital doctors are less militant, probably because they find vocational satisfaction in their conditions in Scotland. In Scotland, therefore, it would be possible to allow these minor irritants to fade away with a little gentle help from the Secretary of State.
It follows that morale in the Scottish Health Service is higher than it is in England. The problems which are provoking unrest are generated outside Scotland, although occasionally the unrest spills over into Scotland.
If the Secretary of State and the Royal Commission seek to understand the deeper reasons for these differences, I would direct their attention to the general ethos of Scottish life and thought. I believe that the Scottish people have a more egalitarian turn of mind. After all, it is we who say "We're a' Jock Tamson's bairns." I have never heard that translated as "We are all John Thompson's children," although there was a day when the shires of England resounded to the cry
When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman?".
Because of this, we have a greater sense of social cohesion and the NHS personnel have a greater personal commitment to the common folk of Scotland whom they serve so ably. This is reinforced by the fact that our great teaching hospitals have always been general hospitals serving a particular area, so that all our doctors have had their feet firmly on the ground during training.
Because of all these differences, there should have been two separate Royal Commissions. It is still not too late for the two Secretaries of State to change their minds on this. Alternatively, it would be possible to ask the one Commission to provide two reports. This could be of great importance, because as the Scottish Assembly comes closer it becomes clear that the


Scottish Health Service will be the responsibility of the Scottish Assembly and therefore the Royal Commission, moving in the majestic way that was propounded, may end up by reporting to this House and also to the Scottish Assembly.
There are one or two aspects with which I should like the Royal Commission to deal. I should want it to inquire into the rôle of social conditions as a factor of bad health. There is a link between deprivation and ill health. We know all about that in West Central Scotland, so there is an area into which the Royal Commission might well inquire It seems to me that a many-pronged attack on social deprivation, through an improvement in general housing and amenities, through the creation of more jobs—by means of the Scottish Development Agency, for instance—and through a broad educational programme would have an effect on our general standard of health.
After all, certain aspects of health care are social as much as medical problems. I think particularly of alcoholism. In Scotland we have a need for specialised units that would provide counselling services so that the descent of the alcoholic could be stopped at a much earlier stage. It is one thing to provide drying-out facilities. It would be far better to interrupt the course of the disease at a much earlier stage. This could be done in such a way that less money would be spent on that than has to be spent on providing beds in mental hospitals in order to deal with the alcoholic.
Some people laughed at the idea that a special portion of the tax on alcohol should be devoted to research into the problem and into action that would help to improve matters, but I think that it is a highly commendable idea and one that should be considered carefully.
I suggest that the Royal Commission should inquire into the link between the health service and the social services, because there is an important overlap. Reference was made earlier to geriatric care. I do not want to labour the matter, but I think that the provision of suitable accommodation outside hospitals would help not only geriatric patients but also many mentally handicapped and mentally ill persons.
I have said that we are looking forward to the coming of the Scottish Assembly. [Interruption.] This is important, because I trust that the Scottish Health Service will come under the Scottish Assembly. It is important to us in Scotland that that should be so. There are exciting prospects ahead for the National Health Service, and I am sure that the personnel of the health service in Scotland will rise to the challenge that these circumstances will bring and will help to make better what is even now a very good service indeed.
I have great sympathy with what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve, but as to the manner in which she has sought to achieve it I believe that her lack of tact and her pugnacity have done great damage. A Minister with a less pugnacious manner would have achieved by tact and persuasion exactly what the right hon. Lady has tried to achieve in her way.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: The medical profession last year asked for £500 million for the National Health Service. It so happens that the Government have spent £750 million on the service, or £250 million more than was asked for.

Mr. David Crouch: That was to keep pace with the inflation caused by the Government.

Mr. Carter-Jones: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear me say that that extra is not enough, but the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) was a member of the Government who, at a time of inflation, cut by £500 million the money provided to the health service. That is a matter of fact, and I make no apology for this attack.

Mr. Crouch: Mr. Crouch rose—

Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his case in due course.

Mr. Crouch: I am disgusted to hear the hon. Gentleman's statement.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I shall make my speech in my own way. I repeat what I said a few moments ago: the medical profession asked for £500 million, and the Government provided £750 million.


The hon. Member for Canterbury complained that that was to cope with inflation, but when his Government were in office he voted, at a time of inflation, for a cut of £500 million.
When we came to office we found that those who could make the greatest contribution to rehabilitation—namely, the nurses and the paramedical professions—were receiving abysmally low salaries which had been held down by the Conservative Government. The pay for these groups of people has been increased by 80 per cent. That is a lot, but it is not enough. Conservative Members cannot belabour me for giving these figures.

Mr. Crouch: I shall do so later.

Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. Gentleman may do so, but it will be hypocrisy.

Mr. Crouch: I shall do it to put the hon. Gentleman right.

Mr. Carter-Jones: If one looks at the 1974 report on the National Health Service one finds plenty of reasons for being critical, and that is what I intend to be tonight. I believe that it is possible for certain facilities and resources to be reallocated in the health service to the benefit of a substantial number of people, but this will require a lot of courage on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the House. We know that we can keep people out of hospital, and that is our job, but how can we do it? It can be done by providing good domiciliary services and by allowing people to live in their own homes with adequate support.
There are three or four points in the annual report that I propose to consider. The first of these involves health centres. If one considers the way in which resources are spent in the health service, one sees that far too high a proportion is spent in hospitals. If help was given to outside services, it would be possible to keep many people out of hospital.
The report shows that there has been some improvement with regard to health centres, but the rate of development has not been fast enough. Nevertheless, in some ways the health service is moving in the right direction. Any doctor who mans a health centre, will realise that these centres do not have the necessary supporting facilities. This is

the result of the low rate of pay for the paramedical professions over many years. Their pay has been increased by 80 per cent. It is not enough. We shall end up with a better service, although perhaps a slightly less costly service, if we apply resources in this way.
Great pride is taken in the work of the Family Fund to which reference has been made. Hon. Members will remember that the Family Fund was set up by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) at a time when there were difficulties over the thalidomide fund. We were told that we were spending time on the problems of thalidomide children and not on those of children who were born congenitally disabled, the reason for which we do not know.
At that time the Secretary of State awarded £3 million. Since then there has been a further £3 million and recently another £2 million. We now find that the working of the Family Fund is very much bedevilled by the reorganisations in local government and in the health service, which have caused not harmony but often conflict. I regret that, because of local government shortage of money and limitations placed on the health service, the Family Fund is being inundated with requests for equipment which should have come either from the health service or local government. All we are getting at present is quarrels. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will intervene over the Family Fund and help to resolve some of the grave problems that it faces.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) mentioned the regrettable delays for certain people, particularly the young, in getting treatment. It is rather unfortunate that there are four or five children throughout the country—and this is not a constituency matter—who are being denied the use of equipment because of the conflict between local government and the health service, with the poor old Family Fund in the middle.
There is one matter that causes me a great deal of anxiety. The 1974 annual report of the Department of Health and Social Security recognises the problem of housing people after they have left hospital. It also recognises a consultant's concern about whether to release a patient because of the home circumstances into


which he or she has to go. We are all aware of this from our constituency mail. The Department is also aware of it.
Paragraph 6.71 of the report says:
On the initiative of the two Departments"—
the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of the Environment—
a number of local authorities are planning special housing developments to see whether very severely disabled people can lead an independent life with the necessary community support outside hospitals or residential homes. It will be some years before these experimental schemes can be evaluated, but the initial response from local authorities has been very encouraging.
Enough evidence is already in existence to show that good housing facilities for seriously handicapped people who come out of hospital are a means of saving money.
In this country we have units of excellence, especially in the sphere of rehabilitation. It would be unfair to name them, but it is appropriate on this occasion to name two—the Mary Marlborough Lodge and, for children, Chailey Heritage. I should like existing knowledge to be applied with far more sense of priority so that many of those who are lingering in hospitals, or sometimes in grubby accommodation, can return to the community, because it is economically possible, technically feasible and morally sound.
If the Royal Commission could look at these aspects I am certain that many of those suffering would be extremely grateful.

7.5 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Of course, not all the faults of the National Health Service can be laid at the door of the Secretary of State but let it be said quite clearly that no one else has ever succeeded as she has done in uniting the whole of the medical profession to a white-hot boiling point of anger. If she is genuinely interested in the National Health Service, the best way she could help it is to resign tomorrow. The way in which repeatedly this afternoon she accused those in the NHS of contemplating industrial action because of their politics will not be forgotten easily outside this House. It is not true to say that either the doctors or the nurses are

interested in politics. They are interested in the National Health Service and want the service to function in the best possible way for the patients. The Secretary of State offends more as Fagin than as Scrooge.
We understand about the shortage of money. However, what cannot be forgiven is that she is dipping her hands into pockets and pulling money out. It is no wonder that the junior hospital doctors are behaving like Oliver Twist. How can it be fair or reasonable to expect one-third of their number to take a salary cut at this time? I should not like to be the wife of a junior hospital doctor, because, due to the long hours he works, he would be almost a stranger to me. On top of that, to be told that at a time of raging inflation he must take a cut in his salary is grossly unfair.
It is also unfair that although the hours of the working week have been set at 40, overtime does not start until 44 hours. Is it to be supposed that the junior hospital doctors are expected to donate to the National Health Service an extra four hours after their working week is finished and before overtime starts?
There is also the matter of the "no detriment" clause, which is a complete contradiction in terms. How on earth can we have a "no detriment" clause when, under the new scheme, a new appointee will receive less than he would have done had there been no new scheme?
There is the question of being on call and working nights. Many junior hospital doctors are astounded to learn that the new agreement means not two nights off in three but that they are contractually obliged to work alternate nights. If they are on call, they will be paid what I would describe as an insulting amount—28p an hour. I could not even get a baby sitter for 28p an hour, never mind a highly qualified doctor.
When the doctors are working in the hospital their overtime pay is derisory. For example, there is the case of a 35-year-old neuro-surgeon in Birmingham who has been qualified for 13 years and has eight years of specialisation behind him. If he is called upon to perform an urgent brain operation at night, he is paid at best £1 an hour for that operation. At one time doctors would carry out operations for a small fee or for no fee at all.
This is where the Government and the Labour Party ought to learn a little lesson about the dangers of imposing egalitarian ism on this country. I want there to be pedestals on to which and towards which people can climb, because if they are allowed so to do they behave in a certain manner. The trouble is that if one goes hell-bent after egalitarianism to such an extent that the doctors are down to the level of the dockers, the doctors will behave like dockers, and when they have genuine grievances they will take industrial action. The Government cannot be surprised that that is so.
The junior hospital doctors look at their future and see the grievances of the consultants, the senior men into whose shoes they will step at some time. They see the grievances which those men are experiencing. That is one of the reasons why junior hospital doctors are not happy today. The consultants' contract on incremental pay has been broken. They are constantly harassed by a load of administration, too much of which is very poor administration indeed.
I was sorry to hear from the Secretary of State today that she does not envisage changing any of the reorganisation plans. I hope that she will think again about that, because many consultants find today that it is unbelievably difficult to get even the most simple pieces of equipment because the administration is so difficult. This is one of the things that was done by the Opposition when we were in Government, and it ought not to have been done in the way that it was. Many Opposition Members are concerned about the whole question of what has happened since reorganisation.
Again, the Salmon Report has taken too many first-class nurses off the wards and put them into administration. This, too, has added to the difficulty.
The morale of the service today is either destroyed completely or is heading straight for destruction. This is much more serious than merely a question of pay. It would not be settled if all the junior hospital doctors, all the consultants and all the nurses suddenly, tomorrow, got all the money for which they were asking, because what concerns them most is the disastrously falling standards of care for the patient.
As regards cuts in nursing staff, one health district is reported to have axed 50 of its staff, and 43 of those were nurses and only two were office staff. If anyone had to be sacked, I should have liked to see only two nurses sacked and 43 office staff sacked. That health district got it completely the wrong way around.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State was caught a little on the hop today and was not able to say how many wards have been closed, but it is true that many wards, and even maternity hospitals, are closing. All of us know that this is true from knowledge of our constituencies.
Earlier this year I raised in the House the question of the accident hospital and the eye hospital in Birmingham and the radiotherapy unit at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. I begged then that standards should be improved for the patients. In fact, very little has been done, if anything. A corridor has been sanctioned and may be built, but there are 10 radiotherapy consultant vacancies in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital at present and there is no one to fill them. In the children's hospital in Birmingham, which serves a population of 5½ million, there is no neurologist, no chest specialist and no skin specialist, and there are no plans to get any of them either.
Last Friday a young doctor came to see me. I assure the House that he was not motivated by any considerations of politics, but he worked at the children's hospital and he was appalled at the falling standards of care for children there.
I am worried, too, about the question of anaesthetists and about operating theatres. I should like to know for how many hours certain operating theatres are supposed to be open and for how many hours they are actually open. The anaesthetist is a vital part of the operating team. While one can have simple operations, one cannot have a simple anaesthetist. He must be a highly qualified man. Some 30 per cent. of anaesthetists' posts in senior registrar grades are vacant. That means that the supply of consultant anaesthetists for the future is likely to be very severely below the required strength.
The worry of this matter is that, faced as we are with these shortages, there are apparently pressures being applied by the Department of Health and Social Security


to lower the standards of the examination. I hope that the Secretary of State will note that if we accept that falling standards will henceforward be the way we proceed, many more people will die of anaesthesia in operations. A locum anaesthetist was a relatively rare bird in days gone by but he is extremely common today. A large number of these locums are not properly qualified.
These are the reasons why morale is low and why so many people in the medical profession today are voting with their feet. It is all very well to ask them to give one year for Britain. Many of them think that they have already given one year or two or three years for Britain. The junior hospital doctors would be a great deal happier in accepting the pay cuts which they have to take now if there was a bright day ahead, if somehow a little way ahead they could see that standards would stop falling and start rising. But there is no bright day, and that is one of the things which is so troubling the junior hospital doctors.
I come finally to the question of pay beds. The Secretary of State has issued a consultative document. I earnestly hope that that is what it is meant to be, because from the way that she and her hon. Friends talk it seems that there is no question of any consultation about the matter at all and that it is all settled. However, let us once and for all get rid of the lie that somehow, because of pay beds, desperately sick or dying people have been prevented from entering hospitals because rich people have taken the vacant beds. That is not true. There has never been a case of a desperately sick person needing hospital care and failing to get it because someone paid, went into hospital ahead of him and took the bed.

Mrs. Renée Short: That is not true.

Mrs. Knight: If the Secretary of State takes note of the views expressed about the consultative document, she may even change her mind. Certainly, if she is interested in the future of the National Health Service, she must do so. She now knows the nurses' views on the consultative document, and the hospital administrators' views. Those views may not be the same as the views of the Minister of State, but at least he ought to listen to them. From Birmingham the

voice comes loud and clear—and not on a political basis. I have in my hand communications from three sources in Birmingham. I shall not quote them all for lack of time. However, one doctor says:
I think it is fair to say that all of us, whether part-time, whole-time, NHS or University Clinical Staffs feel that the legislation proposed must somehow be prevented from reaching the statute book.
That is from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is an important part of the University of Birmingham and a teaching hospital. The local medical committee says the same thing.
I beg the Secretary of State to read the document drawn up by lord Goodman for organisations representing the medical and dental professions and the Independent Hospital Group, which says:
We do not accept as sound or desirable either of the two chief proposals of the document. Indeed, both proposals, if ever put into effect, would be profoundly damaging—to the community, to the NHS, and to the medical and dental professions. Of this there is no shadow of a doubt.
I beg the Secretary of State to let the consultative document be what she says it is.

7.18 p.m.

Mrs. Millie Miller: The House will be familiar with the quotation from Gaius Petronius in the first century A. D. regarding reorganisation in which he said:
We tend to meet every new situation by reorganising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.
That is a description of what has happened to the National Health Service. It is not merely the reorganisations that have taken place in recent years, because the reorganisation goes back to the day in 1957 when the then Conservative Government set up the Willink Committee to look at the entrance into the medical profession.
The effect of that was to reduce the number of doctors qualifying in 1964 from 2,100 a year to 1,500. We are still suffering today from the effects of that reorganisation. The Willink Report—it had some sensible comments in it, but not many—said that not all doctors trained in Great Britain remained here in practice and, conversely, that not all doctors practising in Great Britain had been


trained here. That is borne out by what is happening today.
The Willink Report said that in 1957 the export of doctors from Great Britain was approximately 200 a year. Earlier on, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) mentioned the scare figure of 300 doctors a year leaving. This was a small increase over the intervening period of nearly 20 years. The hon. Member did not see fit to mention the net figure—that is, after taking into account the number entering Great Britain.
The next reorganisation occurred as a result of the Todd Committee which had to undo the harm done by its predecessor. It tried to build up all over again the number of doctors entering the medical profession. It recommended a substantial expansion in medical training, starting in 1970. Unfortunately, despite what the Secretary of State said today, the number entering the profession is far too few and, what is more, not all those who are medically qualified are yet being properly used in the National Health Service.
For example, few women doctors ever get the opportunity to enter a consultancy in their specialty. As for opportunities that arise for the retraining of married women after they have brought up their families, many hospitals and institutions will not be bothered with making the flexible arrangement necessary to enable women doctors to undertake the training. I am proud to say that in my constituency the Goodmayes Hospital, which deals mostly with psychiatric cases, has been able to adjust its timetable of training so that no fewer than 12 women doctors have gone through a training course there.
Many more women doctors would be available if other hospitals followed the example of the Goodmayes hospital. Talents are being wasted because hospitals that say that they can get staff easily and therefore do not need to adapt their training arrangements are taking the easy way out and the service as a whole is losing.
A recent article in The Times talked about the difficulties that women have in obtaining training in the service and stated:
The medical profession, like many others, tends to view marriage on the part of its women members as evidence of a faulty sense of values.

We appreciate that it is not easy to have "flexi-hours" in medical training, but we cannot afford the luxury of training women doctors not to practise; neither can we afford the luxury of training male doctors to go overseas and give the benefit of training obtained in this country to other countries, unless there are some reciprocal arrangements. Fortunately, there are.
Another aspect of reorganisation in the service was the famous one initiated by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). As a member of the National Joint Committee of Women's Organisations I was one of those who responded to the Green Paper that the right hon. Gentleman published. We commented that the new authorities to be established would be appointed by and accountable to the Minister, either directly or indirectly, in which case it would be to the next tier of the structure, with little accountability to local people. We commented, too, that there had been a tremendous emphasis on the managerial abilities of appointees to the National Health Service committees, contrary to the accepted principle of appointments in the public sector where management had until then been the function of paid officials, not of the lay appointees.
The change that has taken place in the National Health Service as a result of those proposals has been devastating not only to people in the ancillary services and to the nurses, but even to the consultants, who a few months ago were doing battle with the Secretary of State and complaining bitterly of the time they had to waste in committees and the amount of time they spent on paperwork because of the way that this reorganisation had taken place.
I beg the Secretary of State—this is one of the few matters on which I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight)—to re-examine the question of reorganisation. I know the inconvenience that reorganisation causes. I am not sure whether the quotation that I used at the outset of my speech applies to un-reorganising. The National Health Service is in desperate need of help. Many of the medical services call out for help in ridding them of the burden being placed upon them by the extra administrative work that the service now has to bear.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do as I suggested and to look again at reorganisation. Its cost to the nation and to the service is far in excess of anything that was promised in the original Green Paper. It has done tremendous harm in every aspect that it has covered and I hope that long before the Royal Commission gets down to its job, my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity of following my suggestion.
We have heard about the views of the doctors and other members of the profession—the nurses and the midwives—on the ending of pay beds. The National Union of Public Employees, which has vast numbers of its members employed in the National Health Service, is endorsing the Secretary of State's aim to end pay beds. The union is begging my right hon. Friend to terminate the phasing out at the earliest possible moment and not to let this matter drag on for an unconscionable time. I hope that all these considerations will be borne in mind, because everybody on this side of the House—and, I discover to my surprise, even a number of hon. Members opposite—wants the National Health Service to survive.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: One thing which has impressed me about the debate is the general awareness throughout the House of many of the problems that exist in the National Health Service. There is general disagreement about what has caused the problems, but there is fairly wide agreement about what the problems are.
The problem that strikes me as proably the most long term to the detriment of the people is the length of waiting lists. One cannot but be concerned about the fact that waiting lists seem to be ever lengthening. Certain recent actions will not shorten waiting lists. Throughout the service there is an amazing dependence on people from overseas who have decided to come as doctors to practise in Britain. I have been struck from inquiries I have made and from talking to various people in the service by the tremendous atmosphere of distrust of Government intentions that now prevails about pay beds, the conditions of junior doctors, and the matter of agency nurses.
For years the National Health Service relied on good will. Only too often the words "good will" could be replaced by "exploitation". The nurses exploded that tendency by their militant action some years ago. However, I have learned from my inquiries that the underlying good will that was there is there for the asking still, but the House must make one or two decisions in order to encourage it.
I am particularly pleased that a Royal Commission is to inquire into the service. It is welcomed throughout the House. It is generally agreed that it is time that we had a reassessment of where the service is going. I have said in the House previously that Liberals are in favour of the phasing out of pay beds. I reiterate that my party supports the Government in that respect. However, I beg the Secretary of State to reconsider the decision not to include this question with the remit of the Royal Commission. I cannot see what harm that would do. It is only a question of seven beds per constituency, and I understand that normally as few as three and a half of them are occupied. In any case, it is a matter that affects mainly London and the South-East. The House is far too concerned with problems in London and the South-East.
I refuse to believe that the question of pay beds is the root cause of the problem. Virtually no pay beds exist for many specialities, but the problems of the service exist in those areas just as they do anywhere else. We support the eventual abolition of the system, but I think that I could guide the Liberal Party into saving the Secretary of State's salary if only she would include this matter within the remit of the Royal Commission even if there were a proviso that a report must be made within, say, three months. The question of pay beds affects the finances of the service, and it is foolish to ignore that fact.
Another matter of which a great deal of notice is taken in the House is the junior doctors' dispute. I should like the Royal Commission to do far more than simply consider the peripheral problems. It is time for us to examine our medical priorities. I am not prepared to support a system in which we allocate resources, in a sort of auction, on the basis of those who can find the money to pay for


operations, and so on. I accuse the House of not facing squarely the alternative of working out how we should allocate the priorities and the facilities at our disposal. Technology within the service has outstripped the money supply, and it is time that the House recognised that. I hope that the Royal Commission will spend some time on looking into that aspect.
I do not want the House or the Department of Health and Social Security to lay down criteria for the way in which doctors should behave, but I wish that the doctors would come together far more to try to improve their cost-effectiveness. We read of substantial differences in time for after-care, in various parts of the country and this must cost a great deal of money. An hon. Member spoke in detail and with substantial accuracy about different treatments given by different doctors for similar illnesses, which must be very expensive. I am sure that substantial sums of money could be saved in many respects if the doctors came together on them.
The whole subject of cost must be investigated. As I have done the rounds of the medical profession—it does not matter which grade I talk to, whether it be doctors, porters, or nurses—all have said that a great deal of money could be saved. When one pursues the matter and asks where money could be saved other than in administration, they are not as specific in their complaints. There is, however, a fairly united view that the reorganisation instituted by the Conservative Government is one of the causes of the problem. One cannot help but notice—and this is a reflection of the change—that, whereas the service apparently has considerable undermanning problems among nurses and doctors, there is no shortage of people who wish to fill the administrative vacancies. I ask the House not to plunge quickly into another reorganisation but to avoid adding to the present confusion.
The dispute among the junior doctors is very dangerous. At present it is a rather gentlemanly affair, with people sending notes to patients saying that they will not be treated, junior doctors waiting in corridors so that if an emergency arises they will be able to take over, and consultants covering hospital work. But

without doubt the backlog is increasing and we are playing a game in which the stakes are very high.
The basic problem of the junior doctors is simply the number of hours worked. We can understand why it is necessary for many doctors to be on stand-by—one never knows what tragedy may hit an area—but I do not understand why it is necessary for doctors to work on average as many hours as they do. Plainly, we are very short of doctors, and that is the basic problem to which the House should pay attention.
I wish that the recent pay negotiations with the doctors had included a "no detriment" clause. I came to the House today with the intention of saying that the Government should immediately embark on discussions with the junior doctors and promise them that when next April came there would be an immediate swop round of the money available so that the junior doctors could be given a guarantee that from that date their position would not be eroded. I gather that that is precisely what the Secretary of State said she would do.
Although the pay policy was introduced at a time of panic and a mistake was made in allowing anomalies such as this to be created, the pay policy must be supported for the preservation of this country's economy and we must ask the doctors to accept the offer until April. I cannot be too critical of the Government on that score.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the hon. Gentleman say why he proposes to vote against the Government tonight?

Mr. Penhaligon: I have already told the Minister that we shall support the Government if they will include within the remit of the Royal Commission an investigation into the question of pay beds, with a three-month report. One may criticise hon. Members' reasons for voting, but at least that is an honest observation. I like to think that the Liberal Party has been more constructive in this debate than other hon. Members.
The argument about the patriotism of doctors nauseates me. I have heard it said from all quarters that doctors are disloyal if they go abroad. I can think of no way in a free country by which one could stop them from going abroad, but


I am not concerned about the emigrating doctors because I have little time for them. However, the cry about a lack of patriotism is a slur on thousands of immigrant doctors in this country who keep the service going but who did exactly the same as our doctors are doing by leaving their own countries. Do hon. Members extend the argument about lack of patriotism to them? It may be argued that the needs of their countries are greater than ours.
I do not believe that the House has done much today about overcoming the basic problem. The debate has been full of anger and party politics, which rarely solve anything. I listened to the speeches of both Front Bench spokesmen. I believe that the temperature of this issue could be lowered if those responsible for appointing the spokesmen on both Front Benches considered those who are second in command and promoted them in the near future.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is obvious that many hon. Members are not paying the slightest attention to Mr. Speaker's plea that our speeches should be limited to 10 minutes. Could you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, imitate the action of a tiger?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Although the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) did not conform strictly to Mr. Speaker's ruling, he exceeded the limit by only one minute. I am sure that all hon. Members will do their best, in their own interests, to limit their speeches to 10 minutes.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: So far the debate has been eccentric and almost embarrassing. The Opposition wish to extract the maximum publicity from this occasion. They tried to embarrass the Secretary of State. They called for her resignation. A great deal of time has been taken up with constituency cases. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) raised a series of NHS problems. It would be more appropriate for Members of Parliament to deal with such cases in their advice centres, if they run them that is. Members of the Opposition have simply failed to make an impact on the Minister. In that respect the

debate has not been worthy of the occasion.
The problems of the NHS did not suddenly emerge in February 1974. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), with good sense, indicated a lack of integrity on the Conservative Benches. I do not wish to engage in a political knock about. It is less than honest for members of the Conservative Party to enjoy themselves at the expense of the Secretary of State, despite what the Press may say tomorrow, as they are not prepared to accept the consequences of the actions of the Tory Government over the previous few years. As there has not been a continuous Labour administration since 1945, it would be far more reasonable and honest if the Opposition shared the responsibilities, the errors of judgment and the failures of planning that have occurred since 1945.
In the mental health service, the Government face a serious problem about the use of resources. In the recently published White Paper on mental health the Minister of State indicated that if we were to spend more on the mental health service, the funds must come from other parts of the NHS. That is an unfair way of stating the matter to parliamentarians, as a decision of the Government is involved. I am not sure that that is the responsibility of Members of Parliament. We are not required to create a ledger account of services for the mentally sick and handicapped, as if there were no way in which we could make use of our resources. In the past year, 24 million working days were lost as a result of mental ill health. It is dubious for Members of Parliament to describe the problems of the NHS only in terms of its finances. We must look at the qualitative aspects of the service and see whether the administration is as effective as it should be.
I wish to refer to the prevention of mental ill health. Many of the factors leading to mental illness are outside the control of society. Those factors cannot be seen in terms of the ledger or financial account mentality. However, we can reduce stress in many areas such as employment, housing and town planning. The health and safety executive is equipped to offer advice to industry and unions on the stress of modern industrial conditions. We may not always be


able to alleviate stress, but we do not have to add to it.
Secondly, there is the problem of recognition. The White Paper on Mental Health makes the point that the general practitioners already undertake 90 per cent. of the treatment of diagnosed mental illness. Their rôle is expanding. In my view, general practitioners need training in the recognition of mental illness. Therefore, a training programme is a priority to enable the general practitioners to treat mental illness and to recognise those cases that require specialist psychiatric help.
There is another important group of key workers in the recognition of mental illness, especially in families with problems. I refer to the social workers. They are also responsible for the valuable work of rehabilitation after treatment. This is not a question which is dependent on obtaining more resources. The White Paper, in outlining ways to help the mentally sick, implies that the facilities that already exist in the community can be better utilised. One of the most important developments in the mental health service is after-care and community work. That work does not require new functional buildings. There are many facilities, such as church halls, otherwise used infrequently, that can be used. In this way we can use existing premises without incurring further capital expenditure. We seek to embrace the recommendations of the White Paper on mental illness and to ensure that we use existing services without further capital outlay.
I would like to draw attention to the importance of volunteers to the mental health service. This is not just because the service does not have the resources for all the staff it needs. Volunteers can help. Even if we had every resource we needed, we should still have room for volunteers. There is always room for the acts of individual kindness that are a spontaneous expression of the community's concern and a continuing link with the world outside the hospital. I welcome the new steps being taken to introduce and integrate voluntary work into the official service.
I regret that the White Paper did not address itself to the revision of the Mental Health Act 1959. I hope that this does not indicate a battle or debate between the resources and the operational and managerial side. The question of how

much we can spend on the NHS has bedevilled all Governments for a long time. I have no doubt that in terms of the national economy this sector must be given priority. Yet at the same time we must make the most of the NHS facilities we have. I refer not only to the mental health service, but the service in general. We have had additional problems with the reorganisation of the service and the failure to understand the use of complex managerial skills.
We may bring emotion to this discussion. Indeed, more emotion has been expressed in the past few hours than is necessary. The NHS and the public expect the Government to show an intelligent appreciation of the work of the doctors, nurses and other staff of the NHS. The Secretary of State has indicated an approach to their need. I do not believe that she has created the impression that her actions are evil or muddled, as suggested today. The Secretary of State is doing a difficult job, with little support and co-operation. Because of the debate on resources we now have a chance of effectively rationalising the NHS. It is a pity that such a stimulus did not occur five or 10 years ago.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Tony Newton: I have an uneasy feeling that the debate has already done more harm than good. What people outside the House will notice is not what has been said by any hon. Member in the last two or three hours, but what the Secretary of State said at the outset of the debate and what the Minister of State may say at the end. In my view the Secretary of State might just as well have asked "Why are we having this debate? What is all the fuss about?" That is exactly what is wrong. Everyone in the medical profession outside the House, many patients, health service administrators and others, have the overwhelming feeling that the Government are living in cloud cuckoo land and trying to wish the problem away. If that is the message of the debate, clearly a good deal more harm will have been done.
I do not wish to spend a great deal of time picking on points made by the Secretary of State or other hon. Members. However, I should like to comment on the farcical figures bandied about concerning the percentage of GNP spent on


the National Health Service last year. We heard an emotional statement from the Secretary of State that she had put people before buildings. But when we analyse what she said and the figures, it boils down to the fact that the Government paid for the wage inflation that they had created in the service. No better buildings were provided and no better services. They footed the bill for the wage round let loose by their policies after the election of February 1974. Last year they bailed the service out of the disastrous consequences of their own economic policies. The fact that the proportion of GNP spent on health had to increase is merely an indication that wages grew so much faster in the public sector than elsewhere in the economy. If the Government want to be proud of that, they are welcome.
We have heard the suggestion that the supply of nurses has miraculously eased. That is not the experience of many who have spoken in this debate. But even if it is true, it would be no more than the mirror image of the fact that we have the highest unemployment since the war. No one is sure that if he leaves his job he will get another. If the Secretary of State wants to make a proud claim about that, she is welcome to do so.
I do not particularly want to spend too much time on this theme or to enter into the delicate question of whether the Secretary of State should resign, which has already split the Liberal Party in half. It is clear that whether the Secretary of State stays or goes, whether she is to blame, whether the present Government are to blame, or whether the previous Government are to blame, there is an element of bitterness and mistrust about the Secretary of State's relations with the profession that demands that something is done—whether it be a change in her approach to the people in the health service or some other change—before we make any progress.
Above all, there are two requirements. First, there has to be some recognition of the scale, size, or nature of the problem, which we have not received today. From the letters I have received from consultants it does not appear that they are just money-grubbing people after the best money they can get, and who, if they do not get it, will go to America. The

letters that I have received are in terms of despair about whether they can continue to do a decent job within the structure that is provided.
Their morale is constantly attacked. They have fears about the future and the inadequacy of the service. They are concerned about whether they will be able to do a worth while job as consultants if they remain within the British health service in its present state of morale and conduct by the Secretary of State. That aspect has not been recognised by Ministers. They feel, too, that they are being played with by politicians.
As the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) has said, criticisms can be made on both sides of the House about how we deal with the matter politically. The Secretary of State has said that the pay bed issue, which has caused tremendous upheaval and anxiety in the profession, is an explicitly political issue. That is why she does not want the Royal Commission to look at the matter. If that is so—it cannot be denied that it has caused a good deal of the present collapse in morale among doctors in the health service—surely it is merely playing politics not to be prepared to reconsider that decision and not to allow the Royal Commission to take an objective look at all the factors that are now involved in the running of the health service. I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said about the Royal Commission and the general widening of its terms of reference.
We must be satisfied that Ministers understand the anxieties and are prepared to be realistic in going some distance to meet the feelings of those who express them. There must be at least a constructive approach to the problem now, and not just a Royal Commission that will report in two years' time. It must be clear that Ministers are genuinely trying to tackle the problem and not just trying to argue that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
I wish to concentrate on what is unashamedly a local point. I do not pretend to know whether the National Health Service is crumbling in a great national way. I do not spend my time travelling around the nation looking at what is happening in the hospitals and health services in the far North, Wales


and the Midlands. However, I do know what is happening in my area, about which I have been in correspondence with one or other of the Ministers for a considerable time. The two areas with which I am concerned are the Colchester and Chelmsford districts of the Essex Area Health Authority.
I shall choose my words carefully. I do not want to say that the services in those areas are crumbling, but there is growing anxiety amounting almost to desperation amongst the consultants, doctors, administrators and, indeed, amongst almost anyone one talks to. I recently received a copy of a telegram—it was sent to the Secretary of State—from the Chelmsford District Community Health Council asking for a meeting with her. It says:
Health services in Chelmsford district running on luck and good will. Hospital situation deplorable. Some specialties emergency only basis at best".
Lest it be thought that this is some politically motivated Conservative dominated body, I point out that the local branch of the National Association of Local Government Officers sent at about the same time a resolution in not dissimilar terms. This is a widespread view. It is not politically motivated.
These are the feelings that exist in this part of Essex. They have been building up for years with the diminution of the hospital services in Braintree, which is the town that gives its name to my constituency, and then there has been the closure of the casualty department at Black Notley Hospital which has pushed an even bigger load onto the already inadequate casualty facilities in Colchester and Chelmsford. In recent months I have received an endless flow of letters about these matters. Only last week there were 2,000 signatures demanding the re-opening of the casualty department. Until someone can provide a satisfactory alternative, I am with those people all the way.

Mr. Moonman: This is wrong.

Mr. Newton: I do not believe that it is wrong. I come to a general point about the health service and what I believe Ministers should now be doing. My concern is widely shared. The rundown of existing hospital services in this

area has happened over the past few years on the understanding that there would be new district general hospitals for Chelmsford, or for Colchester, or for both. What has happened is that each year we have lost something and each year absolutely nothing has come to provide us with a service in its place.

Mr. Moonman: What the hon. Gentleman is doing is totally demeaning.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to stand up. I shall not take his interruption from a sedentary position.

Mr. Moonman: Mr. Moonman rose—

Mr. Newton: I have got the point now. My speech will be extended further if the hon. Member persists with his interruption. I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that my argument leans towards the suggestion that there is a maldistribution of resources within the health service. It is particularly striking in my constituency. Its rectification could be a major contribution by the Minister to increasing confidence in the National Health Service, certainly in my area, and, I suspect, in a number of others.
The point is that these areas have had a rapidly growing population since the war. Where is the money being spent—at least in the North-East Thames area? It is being spent on new hospitals that are being built in the declining population areas of north and east London, and it is still going on.
This year there is talk of building a major hospital in Newham. I have nothing against Newham, but I would guess that a substantial part of Newham's population has already been decanted into my constituency and other parts of Essex. Yet new hospitals are being built in areas of declining population, whereas areas such as mine, with a rapidly expanding and still growing population, are getting nothing at all.
Last year I asked the Minister of State for some statistics on this matter. I shall not weary the House with all of them. However, I observe that the Chelmsford and Colchester districts have had no new hospitals or major improvements since the war. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck)


raised some of these problems with the Minister a few months ago, he was told:
I must tell the House that we shall have to toe thinking in less ambitious terms as far as new building is concerned."—[Official Report, 1st May 1975; Vol. 891, c. 799.]
As far as my area is concerned, one cannot be less ambitious than nothing.
Following the working party on the distribution of resources between regions, which I understand has reported, I want an acknowledgement by the Minister that there should be a careful look at the allocation of resources between areas within regions. I am sure that the hon. Member for Basildon will agree that areas of expanding population should have proper account taken of their health needs, because the population is young and is continuing to grow.
Confidence in the National Health Service in my area, stripped of all the grander issues that we have been debating, will not recover until something is done about this specific practical aspect of the problem.

8.2 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller: While I understand and appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you cannot in any way rule on or control the content of speeches by hon. Members, I hope you are taking note that a number of speeches by Opposition Members have been almost entirely confined to constituency points which, I suggest, should be raised with the Minister concerned either by letter or in discussion with him. I deprecate the use of parliamentary time on matters of that kind. I do not say that hon. Members should not be concerned about their constituencies, but this is not the time for these points to be made.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The whole point is that these matters have been put to the Secretary of State and we have had no satisfaction whatever.

Dr. Miller: I take the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point, but this is not the time for matters which can be pursued in other ways.
It is interesting to note that the junior hospital doctors' dispute seems to have sparked off this argument. To my mind it is tragic that these unfortunate young

men and women should be involved in a situation for which my right hon. Friend is being attacked.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) that the whole of the medical profession and the public are up in arms about the pay bed issue. That is not the situation. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), the numbers of consultants who use pay beds are very small. Therefore, this matter does not affect a large proportion of the medical profession and it is not supported by the vast majority of the population.
I do not think that anything is achieved by the panicky accusations and shrill cries about the imminent collapse of the National Health Service. It is easy to be in favour of a greater allocation of finance for the health service, but it is a colossal cheek for the Opposition to criticise my right hon. Friend in terms in which they do.
What did the previous Government do when they were responsible for the health service? They made savage cuts in the capital alloted to it and they introduced a pay policy which led to near revolt on the part of the nurses. There was not a whisper of condemnation from the medical profession at that time. It was left to my right hon. Friend and to this Government to sort out that matter, and not only to restore the position of the nurses but to increase the resources for the health service.
It is all very well for Opposition Members to be mealy-mouthed about the 5·4 per cent. of our gross national product which is being spent on the NHS—a mere £4,500 million this year. I know that some other countries spend more. However, no other democratic country uses 5·4 per cent. of its GNP to implement a National Health Service which is State financed to the extent of 92 per cent. In most countries the State's allocation is much smaller. In some instances it is tiny. For example, in America it is minute. No one can laud the Americans for their health system. I have had many contacts with American doctors and patients who have had the good sense, if visiting this country, to use our health service and to compare it with the health service in America. I know which of the two services they prefer.
It is all very well for Opposition Members to refer to the situation in the United States. It is not the United States Government or legislators who do not want to institute, implement and inaugurate a health service; it is a very tightly-bound medical profession which has a lot of influence and power, which it uses to prevent the implementation of a national health service. One might imagine that it was virtuous to do what they do. I do not think that it is.
One must not be complacent about this matter. There is no doubt that improvements could and should be made in the health service. I should love to see more impetus given to and greater stress put upon the prevention of disease rather than the treatment of illness. I should like to see the development of an occupational health service and the day when every aspect of our health service is completely free at the time of use.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, in a thoughtful speech, referred to consultants, nurses, junior hospital doctors and GPs. In addition to those very valuable people, there are many ancillary workers whose contribution to the health service is equally valuable and without which it would indeed collapse.
My hon. Friend talked about disgruntlement in the medical profession. There has always been disgruntlement between the medical profession and a Labour Government. Dr. Donald Gould, writing in the New Statesman last week, put it very well:
Doctors are born malcontents.
He is right. They are born malcontents. But he gets to the point very well when he goes on to state that
doctors, as a professional group, are far too isolated from the rest of society and from some of the harsh realities—particularly the economic realities—of daily life.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles rose—

Dr. Miller: I have already given way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have not got time to give way again.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Eighty hours a week.

Dr. Miller: I shall go on to the 80 hours a week. Doctors do not work 80 hours a week.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Doctors do work 80 hours a week.

Dr. Miller: Do not talk nonsense. They do not work 80 hours a week. They are on call for a proportion of that time—about half. When I was a general practitioner, on that basis I worked 168 hours a week. But I did not work those hours. I was on call. There is a big difference.
There has always been conflict between the medical profession and a Labour Government. The medical profession in England in particular—I say this to the Welsh and Scottish National Parties—thinks that it is a cut above the rest of us. It thinks that it is God's gift to humanity. That is not the situation in Scotland, because, if I may put in a plug of this kind in the same way as did the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson), the medical profession there is drawn from a much wider cross-section of the community. Our medical training is different. We take medical training in a university or in college and mix with all the other students. A medical student in England goes to a specific school and mixes with no one except medical students. He gets a completely wrong idea about what is going on in the world.
Let us not make too much of a conflict between the medical profession and the Labour Government. What are the consultants grumbling about? Does the House know the salaries earned by consultants about which they are supposed to be so disgruntled? The salary scale ranges from £7,536 to £10,689. Roughly 40 per cent. get merit awards, which range from over £2,000 a year to over £10,000 a year in addition to their salary. That means that during the course of their careers 50 per cent. of the consultants can be sure of getting a merit award. That is not a terribly bad livelihood.
I do not know whether I am bringing this information to an unsuspecting public, but do they know that the average income for general practitioners is £11,860 gross? Nowadays the life of a general practitioner is much better than I had during my years in general practice. I do not complain about that; good luck to them. Some of my GP friends manage to play golf two or three times a week. I do not object to that, but it is not a cause for discontent.
Junior hospital doctors have always been a badly exploited section of the medical profession. There is no doubt of that. I remember my days as a junior hospital doctor when I worked 104 or 105 hours per week, not a 40-hour doctor, when I earned £104 or £105 per year, not for a 40-hour or 80-hour week but for a 168-hour week. I was on duty all the time. There was no one else there to help me out. I do not claim that it is a good situation; it is very bad, but it is not new, One might think that junior hospital doctors have had no rise, but they had a 30 per cent. increase in April. Even the youngest junior hospital doctor, wet behind the ears from medical college, receives a minimum of £2,869. That is not a tremendous amount of money but it is much more than in my day, even taking into account the devaluation of money. A senior registrar receives £6,279. These are regular grades that the doctors will achieve without promotion. The registrar would be of about seven or eight years' standing as a doctor and about 30 years of age. I am not suggesting that that it is a fortune, but it is not too bad. I did not become a member of the medical profession to grub for money. Our duty is to our patients and not to our pockets.
I had two years in general practice before the establishment of the National Health Service. If I had any doubts about my Socialist convictions, they were completely dispelled by my experiences then. People who needed my help as a doctor were reluctant or unable to seek my assistance because they could not afford to pay. Opposition Members should reflect on that situation before they attack the NHS.
I welcome the Royal Commission. I hope that it will turn its attention to many aspects of the medical scene. I hope that it will take into account the climate and the kind of society in which we live, which often causes the diseases from which we suffer. I hope that the Royal Commission will consider the possibility of an attack on the two main diseases of our day, cancer and heart disease, because I believe that these conditions are part of the climate of the country in the same way as tuberculosis was in the nineteenth century and the plague in the seventeenth century.
In its deliberations, which must be fairly long and of a varied character, the Royal Commission must not tamper with the cardinal principle of our British National Health Service, which is the right of our people to receive medical advice and treatment without payment at the time of use. The financial barrier which was previously imposed must never be allowed to return.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I am grateful for the opportunity to give vent to my anger, which has been simmering for more than six months, about the way in which school nurses and tuberculosis visitors have been treated by the Secretary of State.
The school health service has been looking after our nation's children for 60 years. It came into existence following the War Office findings that 50 per cent. of the men enlisted for the Boer War were physically unfit for military service. The service became a statutory service under the Education Act 1944. Its future is now in doubt.
The TB visitors, who work with TB and cancer patients from chest clinics, are depressed and resentful and are carrying on their work only from a deep sense of duty and loyalty to their patients. Is it possible that the Secretary of State is blissfully unaware of the situation, or is she deliberately trying to destroy morale among school nurses and TB visitors, as she has done in other sectors of the health service? Alternatively, perhaps she is so blinded by dogma that she cannot see further than the foot of the nearest private bed.
The reorganisation of the school health service in 1974 resulted in school nurses being taken over by area health authorities which provide an agency service for the education authority—the choice of expression is not mine. Each school nurse's case load is between 2,000 and 3,000 children. She usually works in three or four schools until the birth of a vast comprehensive school when she may work in one.
The typical school nurse's day starts at 8.30 a.m. at the family health clinic. In urban areas she is at school by 9 o'clock. She sees all children once a year while they are at nursery school, at five years old when they enter the infants'


school and at nine years old before going to junior school. The school nurse is a practitioner and a professional in her own right. She plays the part of detective in spotting defects in children's health and recommends appropriate corrective action. As well as visiting schools, she spends half her time in home visits and is expected to collect reliable information for Government research purposes and to participate in health education programmes at school. As will be seen, the future health of our nation's children is in her hands.
On the other hand, the TB visitors are chest clinic and visiting sisters. Each serves a population of about 250,000. TB visitors were formerly nominated from ward sisters. Their main work is domiciliary visits to patients who have chest conditions—chronic bronchitis, cardiac complaints, and tuberculosis. In England and Wales there are, yearly, new notifications of 11,000 tuberculosis sufferers. The 1973 figures showed that tuberculosis was still causing more deaths each year than any other notifiable infectious disease.
In the large cities the qualified and experienced TB visitors are still much needed. Members would have thought that the Secretary of State would recognise the crucial work of the school nurses and TB nurses and would have championed their cause against any attempt to discriminate against them, but she has not done so. Perhaps it is because the right hon. Lady is influenced only by the large battalions. As there are only 4,000 school nurses and 200 TB nurses, she is none too concerned.
There are now two classes of school nurses. Mrs. Graham, of Knowsley, is one kind. She is a State Registered Nurse with three years' training, a registered fever nurse, one years' training, and a State Certified Midwife, one year's training. She has a certificate for tropical diseases and another from the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene. But Mrs. Graham does not have a health visitor's certificate. To gain such a certificate there is an eight months' course, a course, which has been in existence for only the past 13 years. Mrs. Graham has been in the service for 34 years.
Then there is Mrs. Sanson, from Cumbria. She is a State Registered Nurse and a State Certified Midwife with 35 years' experience. She was a maternity ward sister for many years and then a district nurse-midwife. In 1967 she accepted the post of school nurse full-time because of a shortage of health visitors. She does not have a health visitor's certificate.
Mrs. Tuttle, of London, does not have a health visitor's certificate either. She was a ward sister and a State Registered Nurse. She is a registered sick children's nurse with 20 years' experience. These women have experience and qualifications but not a health visitor's certificate. Instead of having the status and pay of a ward sister (1), they are paid on the basic grade of staff nurse. That is the rate for new entrants to nursing.
I shall make it plain that the work of the school nurse, whether she is certificated or not, is identical to that of a hospital nurse. She has identical responsibilities and the task required of her is exactly the same. However, there is discrimination. There are two classes of nurses within the same service. There is the one with a health visitor certificate and the one without, such as Mrs. Graham, who has 34 years' experience and a host of other qualifications. She is on the same grade as a young nurse of 22 or 23 who comes straight from the eight months' course.
The Whitley Council, which deals with the terms and conditions of nurses' pay, recognised years ago that a school nurse fulfilled a unique and vital rôle even without the health visitor certificate and that that should be reflected in her status and pay. For this reason she was paid on an interim scale above staff nurse but below ward sister. When the staff nurses' starting pay was £1,191, rising to £1,454 the school nurse and TB visitor without a certificate started at £1,299, rising to £1,728. Halsbury, in an attempt to simplify the pay structures, exacerbated the odious class differential by downgrading the pay and conditions of school nurses without certificates to a common grade, title and common pay scale, as Halsbury called it. At the same time the school nurses with certificates had their pay and status upgraded. It is the


Minister's indifference to this situation that has caused a crisis of confidence.
In 1954 the salary differential between the TB visitor with or without the certificate was £20. In 1960 the differential was £110. In 1967 the differential was £150 and in 1970 it was £180. Following Halsbury, the differential was increased to £1,248 at the top end of the scale. As nearly all TB visitors are at the top end of the scale, it means that they are all earning £1,248 a year less because they do not have the certificate. Whereas in 1954 the differential represented 5 per cent., in 1975 it represents no less than 50 per cent.
Halsbury established the following arrangements for nurses. There is a ward sister (1), including school nurses with certificates, and there is the ward sister (2), which includes community nurses and district midwives. Then there are staff nurses, which include school nurses and TB nurses without certificates. What Halsbury has done is to ensnare many senior ward sisters who, to gain wider experience, entered the school nursing profession some years ago and now find themselves at the bottom of the grade with no hope of getting back to their rightful position.
Since Halsbury was implemented last year, the Whitley Council has been asked to examine the matter, but nothing has happened. I have appealed to the Secretary of State and to her Ministers. I have tabled Question and Early-Day Motions. The right hon. Lady's reply can best be summed up by reading an extract from her letter of 7th August to the staff side of the Whitley Council, in which she wrote:
I have taken longer to reply than I would normally wish but that is a reflection of my concern to examine very carefully whether I could respond positively to your request at least on school nurses and TB visitors. Let me say at the start that I appreciate the keen disappointment of some nurses on discovering that despite substantial increases in their salaries—".
That is a reference to an increase of 5 per cent. Is that what the right hon. Lady claims to be the biggest increase in the history of the National Health Service for school nurses without the health visitor's certificate? The letter continues:
the simplified grading structure, which was generally welcomed by both sides of the Council, resulted in changes which so adversely

affected their previous relativity with their colleagues. This is, of course, a potential hazard in any such exercise.
From that extract it will be seen that the nurses were given a sharp slap in the face by the lady with an iron hand. Since my appeal to the right hon. Lady, the staff side of the Whitley Council and NALGO have asked that the matter should go to arbitration. However, the management side of the Whitley Council has refused.
I quote a further extract from the right hon. Lady's nauseating letter, in which she writes:
I am confident that the management side did not take lightly their decision not to agree to join the staff side in conciliation—as you rightly say, for the first time in many years—and after most careful consideration I have concluded that I cannot reasonably take exception to their view that it is undesirable to take to arbitration the findings of an independent review body.
What is this independent review body which the Minister talks about? The Whitley Council is made up of two halves—namely, the staff side, representing the professional bodies, and the management side, representing her Department and the regional and health authorities who are beholden to her. Independent indeed!
What effect has this all had? Nurses are drifting away, and it may well reach the point soon where the right hon. Lady will be unable to carry out her statutory responsibilities laid down in the 1944 Act because of her inability to staff the service. Let us take Liverpool, for example. There is a nursing establishment of 84 but there is a 13 per cent. shortage. Of the remaining 74, only 19 of the school nurses have the health visitor certificate. In Sunderland, for example, out of 28 school nurses only one has the certificate. It would not be possible to run the Liverpool school nursing service with 19 nurses doing the work of 84. When we see that an aide to a social worker, as advertised in London, can receive a salary of about £3,000, we can understand the deep personal resentment of these nurses.
So severe has been the downgrading that some school nurses have to retire early to protect their pension rights. Mrs. Kerr, of Birmingham, is an example. She is a former ward sister and would have been earning a salary of £3,894 but is now earning £2,646. She is having to


stop work as a school nurse since her pension rights are calculated on the best of the last three years she has worked.
The service is in decline, morale is getting low and school nurses are depressed and are drifting away. Few school nurses with health visitor certificates are coming forward to fill the gaps. Perhaps the right hon. Lady will explain how she will run her statutory service when the staff falls below the minimum requirement. Has she considered any steps to halt the drift, and, if so, what are they? Systematically, the right hon. Lady has neglected school nurses and health visitors. Equally reprehensible has been her behaviour towards the small but concerned group of nurses who look after TB victims and who often contract the illness themselves.
School nurses are a very important part of the Welfare State and they have given nearly four generations of service to the nation. What have they done to deserve such treatment at the hands of the Secretary of State? The right hon. Lady was once shattered to learn that nurses were against her plans for the National Health Service. One wonders what further catastrophe has to occur before she desists in her petulant and obstinate disregard of the plight of school nurses and TB visitors. The Secretary of State should have not only her salary reduced by half but her status as well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair must intervene because many hon. Members still desire to speak in the debate. We have only 30 minutes left for back-bench speeches. Therefore, I hope that speeches will be confined to a duration of 10 minutes.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I am deeply conscious of the unenviable position in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services find herself in face of the economic situation but, in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), I must draw her attention to the plight of the hospitals in my constituency in Watford. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend knows that, because of staff shortages and defunct equipment, the casualty department of Watford

General Hospital was closed over the weekend a short time ago. This is absolutely deplorable.

Mr. Anthony Fell: The hon. Gentleman talks about the Watford General Hospital's casualty department being closed over the weekend. He might like to know that my casualty department in Yarmouth has been closed over weekends for month after month.

Mr. Tuck: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's dilemma. I should like to turn to phase three of the Watford General Hospital, which has now been delayed for two years and which does not look like going ahead at all. One of the provisions of phase three was the building of a suite of four operating theatres and a theatre sterile supply unit. The whole project was shelved, with the result that we have operating waiting lists sometimes for months; there are even waiting lists for X-rays. We are being provided with one operating theatre at Shrodells Wing, but that is not enough.
The Watford Memorial Wing was built 50 years ago and needs an extra operating theatre, improved outpatient facilities, additional medical beds and additional pathology laboratory provision. At Shrodells we need 29 acute beds, as well as medical, orthopaedic, gynaecological and geriatric provision. We also need 54 children's beds and 19 communicable disease beds, an accident and emergency department and a minor theatre.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State knows it but, because phase three was expected at Watford, nothing at all was spent on facilities that would have become obsolete once the new building was available. As a result—and here I quote from Mr. Treharne, the South-West Herts District Health Administrator—bathrooms and toilets are in a shocking condition, 50 years out of date, most unsatisfactory and not adequate for the patients they serve in number of facilities. Phase three was supposed to be brought in many years ago, so that it is not as though it was a new idea.
I appreciate that certain cuts have to be made. My right hon. Friend said that cuts must be made in capital expenditure rather than in services. However, if we go too far in cutting capital expenditure, we shall cut the vital services, and I


ask my right hon. Friend and the Minister of State to ponder on the situation and to act accordingly.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I shall concentrate on what I consider to be the central issue, which I hope the Royal Commission will face. I welcome the formation of the Royal Commission and I hope that it will be able to take account of the structure of the National Health Service not only in England and the South-East, but in the English regions and in South Wales.
I dismiss the pay bed issue very quickly as being totally peripheral. There are only 68 pay beds in the health service in Wales. The whole argument has been highlighted out of all proportion to reality. We should be talking about the allocation of resources within the health service.
I am extremely concerned about the way in which the allocation of resources has been centralised. The district general hospitals and teaching hospitals have been eating up resources at the expense of other sectors of the hospital service and the community health services generally. These centres have been sucking in the resources, and as a result there are severe problems facing the peripheral hospitals and the community health services generally. When the great clinical and research complex was constructed, it was not in Gateshead, Glasgow, Barrow in Furness or Merthyr Tydfil, but in the outer part of London, at Northwick Park, to serve the convenience of the South East of England.
We have a similar problem in Wales with the construction of the Heath Hospital in Cardiff. The building of the Heath Hospital and the far higher level of costs incurred in the building of such a massive district general hospital have resulted in the revenue position of the peripheral hospitals in Cardiff to date being severely reduced. As a result of the building of this massive centralised teaching hospital, the speciality of cardiac surgery and thoracic surgery, which used to be a leading speciality in the Cardiff area, has now been severely run down, with the result that patients have to go to London for cardiac surgery, which used to be done at Sully in Cardiff.
Not only have we to look at the structure and the building of district general hospitals. There are also problems of the bed costing in those hospitals and the different ways in which these can be reduced by increasing the occupancy rates. A more effective programme of investigation—possibly a computerised programme—in all the major hospitals could ensure that the bed occupancy rates in district general hospitals were increased.
In addition to the problem of bed occupancy and the standardised costs of district general hospitals, which are so much greater than those of the peripheral hospitals, their very existence has effected the revenue account position of the peripheral hospitals. We now see proposals to close down more of the community hospitals and some of the old cottage hospitals. In Clwyd, for example, there is a proposal to close down the hospital at Llangwyban, which was a long-stay hospital, in order to fund the new district general hospital at Bodelwyddan.
The Royal Commission—and, indeed, the Department—should be looking now at ways of pruning the overspending of the district general hospitals, and not running down the peripheral hospitals, which are mainly our long-stay hospitals. I highlight particularly the position of Ely Hospital in Cardiff. Despite all that happened there, the revenue of that hospital this year has been cut back in order to transfer that revenue to maintain Heath Hospital. What is happening in Cardiff is typical of what is happening throughout the health service.
I have discussed with the Minister the need for joint allocation and joint financing of services as between the hospital sector, community health services, and the personal social services and I shall not detain the House. It is important that we should look at joint allocation of projects as between area health authorities and the personal social services, so that we can flexibly direct resources out of the area of historic overspending, such as the district general hospitals, into community provision.
The Royal Commission has an excellent opportunity to look at this basic question of resources, linking resources to the demographic factors and the morbidity factors. Gwynedd Area Health


Authority has been under-funded in the past, and that under-funding has been transferred into the new reorganised system.
I shall support the Government tonight, not because I am satisfied with the direction in which they are leading the health service, but because I am even more appalled by the direction proposed by the official Opposition.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: When they were not concerned with constituency matters, most of the speeches from the Opposition benches to which we have listened have been squalid little exercises abusing the Secretary of State. Led by the pirouetting figure of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), all of them have spent a great deal of time talking about pay beds and the need to retain them in the National Health Service. However, none of them have analysed the principle and the ideals of the NHS.
Government supporters believe the principle of the National Health Service to be based upon the maxim, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. It is founded on the ideal that medical care should be available to all, that it should be free at the point of use and that access should be on the grounds of strict medical priority alone and not upon the basis of ability to pay. In view of that principle and ideal, we find the existence of pay beds an affront to the very concept of the NHS.
No one denies that there is queue-jumping because of pay beds. Indeed, it is their raison dêtre. It is outrageous that the wealthy should be able to move to the front of the queue by greasing the palms of consultants. The Opposition say that it is necessary for busy business men to take advantage of pay beds because they need to time their operations. It is argued that the system is necessary for their convenience. But their convenience is no more important than the convenient timing of an operation for a working woman in Kirkby or Ormskirk who has the same problem of making crucial and necessary arrangements for her family and household. Why is the business man so much more important than other members of the community? That we tolerate, let alone defend, the

existence of pay beds is a blemish on our society.
The all-party Expenditure Committee of this House pointed clearly to the abuses of the National Health Service practised by private medicine, with consultants taking out equipment from the NHS and using it in Harley Street. If nothing else, the private abortion clinics are a graphic enough illustration of the exploitation capability of doctors.
Pay beds have only a 52 per cent. occupancy rate. It means that beds wait for the whims of the wealthy while the poor sick wait for beds. At a time of extreme pressure on our resources, the greater is the need for rationing by strict medical priority, and the abolition of pay beds from the National Health Service will release facilities and funds for the really medically needy.
What are the arguments for retention? What arguments are proffered by the Opposition? The Opposition adopt their customary rôle of defenders of privilege and wealth. They wheel out a series of geriatric arguments which deserve a quick mercy killing. They want to turn health into a market commodity peddled to the highest bidder, often with the easiest, trivial and most expensive to deal with complaint.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that this was only a small problem, that we should not bother with it, that pay beds were insignificant, that in terms of the number of beds in the NHS they represented only about one per cent. and that we should not make a fuss about them. In a way he is right, but he should not make a fuss because his argument cuts both ways, justice is on our side, and each will move to its inevitable conclusion.
The Opposition talk of the cost to the Exchequer of the abolition of pay beds. However, they do not set the revenue derived from pay beds against the expenditure incurred. Nor are Government supporters prepared to accept selling the principle of a free, generally available, accessible-to-all National Health Service for the sake of a few "bob", as the Opposition seem prepared to do.
The Opposition also put forward the scaremongering arguments about emigration. They advance the silly argument that if private practice is separated from


the National Health Service, doctors, poor dears, will have to travel from one hospital to another, which will take them more time and make them more exhausted. These are indications of the level of argument to which the Opposition have been reduced.
They even say "We will lose private donations if you take away this privilege. Private benefactors will no longer come along in a magnanimous spirit and produce money for the health service." We do not want that kind of patronage.
Then they deal in the big argument, the freedom-of-choice argument, the "three cheers" kind of expression. Yet they do not say that there is no choice for the majority, for the 98 per cent. of the population who do not have the ability or the wherewithal to use pay beds. There is no choice for the poor: they are not free to see a consultant. Indeed, patients in my constituency are not even free to choose their doctor when struck off a GP's list. They have no redress against that action.
"Freedom of choice" is the phrase used by a vested privileged minority in defence of a vested interest. It is the cry of the reactionary through the ages against any move to progressive legislation. What it means in practice is the freedom of consultants—

Mr. Anthony Fell: Mr. Anthony Fell rose—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: No, I have no time and the House has no time to waste on non-interventions by the hon. Member.
"Freedom of choice", when used by Opposition Members, means the freedom only of consultants. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made this clear in the House on 5th May, when he said that pay beds enabled the specialists
to preserve for themselves"—
for themselves—
the freedom to practise outside the full-time salaried service."—[Official Report, 5th May 1975; Vol. 891, c. 1086.]
So the freedom is not that of the patient but, as the hon. Member made clear, freedom for the specialist. The choice which is linked with that freedom is the prerogative only of the rich. This is intolerable and cannot be accepted.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked on 19th April whom the Government were trying to please by the aboli-

tion of pay beds. We can turn the question around. Whom are he and his hon. Friends trying to please by their retention? The mass of the population have no opportunity to use pay beds. They will not be pleased by their retention. The hon. Member would please a vested interest.
The hon. Member also asked, in his childlike, pirouetting, inquisitive manner, who would lead the applause for the implementation of our policy. We know that if our policy is not implemented and if the doctors can take their hands out of their full pockets for long enough, they and they only are the people who will applaud his policy. They are the same people who applauded his conference speech when in the same breath he promised to fight for the retention of pay beds and—should the misfortune of a Conservative Government ever come about—to take away social security benefits from the families of strikers. For that, he received a cheap standing ovation from the blue rinse set of the Tory Conference.
But at least we have the hon. Member's pledge that he will fight the abolition—and we mean the abolition, not just the separation—of pay beds all the way. We can therefore look forward to the intervention once more of "Rossi's irregulars", straight from their success on the Community Land Bill—all 15 of them—who will no doubt come here late at night to fight our legislation. We shall be pleased to deal with them then as we did only last week.
Let us be clear: the doctors' strident defence of pay beds is a defence of themselves, of their own interests. They show a concern for money rather than a concern for the sick. Why do they not make the same fuss, why are they not so vociferous, about the long waiting lists? Why are they so more concerned to help others to jump the queue? Because they are paid, and paid handsomely, that is why.
They know that the private sector could not function without the National Health Service. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield seems to have put his foot in it more than anyone else. He made clear again on 5th May, when he whined in the petulant manner that he so frequently adopts in this Chamber, the difficulties that would be faced by


the private sector if it were to be cut off from the health service and particularly from the diagnostic facilities for the treatment of cancer. The doctors want to continue their lucrative and parasitic activity of feeding off the sick. The mantle of healer of the sick has slipped.
Doctors belong to a caring profession. The only trouble at the moment is that a minority care only about themselves. Things were different once, and I quote from "Medical Ethics" as set out in the British Medical Association Handbook under the heading "The Brotherhood of Medicine", it says:
The entrant to the profession of medicine"—
this is relevant today when junior doctors are on strike—
joins a fraternity dedicated to the service of humanity. He will be expected to subordinate his personal interests to the welfare of his patients, and, together with his brother practitioners, to seek to raise the standard of health in the community among which he practises.
The Declaration of Geneva—these are great and fine words—goes on to say:
The health of my patient will be my first consideration"—
today, when they are treating emergency emergencies only?
I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient.
The last one is the best:
A doctor must practise his profession uninfluenced by motives of profit.
What a fuss we have heard from them about the general problem of pay beds.
Those fine words were reiterated in 1973 when, as hon. Members will recall, ancillary hospital workers were on strike. The doctors then were out in force displaying their righteous indignation—and I quote from The Times of 13th March 1973. Screaming banner headlines said:
Consultants say strike is threatening to cause death and permanent ill health.
A report following that headline said:
The hospital strike is threatening permanent ill health or disability for some patients and premature deaths for others, 300 consultants in Birmingham said yesterday.
The consultants said:
Unless we are able to admit patients to our hospitals and to call on the full diagnostic and investigatory services for cases other than emergencies"—

and it is only emergencies that we are talking about today—
some patients will inevitably suffer an irreversible deterioration in health.
They went on to say:
The consequences of this will be permanent ill-health or disability and, for some people, death at an earlier date than would have been the case had our normal hospital services been available.
The consultants were saying that during the hospital ancillary workers' strike, and they went on displaying all their indignations in the letter columns of The Times on the rights and duties of hospital workers.
Expressing sympathy for the ancillary workers, a Dr. Sampson wrote in The Times of 10th March 1973:
None the less I never thought the day would come when these workers would strike in support of a pay claim, however justified.
He went on:
In the case of a strike by hospital workers the harm is done entirely to those who are already in poor health"—
how appropriate those words are today—
or old or in mental distress, and such a strike is therefore especially cruel. What sort of leadership has so contaminated this admirable group of workers?
There are many more examples. On 30th March 1973 a Professor Goodwin said these words, which are most pertinent to the situation today:
While it may be true that no patient who is being treated as an in-patient in hospital is suffering as a result of the industrial dispute involving certain hospital workers, it is true also that many patients are suffering and are in danger of life and health because they cannot be admitted to hospital…When the necessary operations are delayed, the results can be catastrophic.
The Professor, who is a cardiac surgeon, pointed out:
Delay for even a short period causes a disastrous inflation of hospital waiting lists so that the problem becomes progressively more serious with the passage of time.
The public should understand fully the catastrophic hindrance to the treatment of one of the commonest and most serious group of diseases at the present time; nor should there be any illusion regarding the suffering caused.
Dr. R. W. D. Turner on 19th March 1973 attacked the ancillary workers. He said:
One of my particular concerns is the assessment and preparation of patients for operations on the heart. In many cases the individual is aware that surgical treatment may


give a new lease of life, or abruptly end their days. They have been prepared and are ready for the day. The psychological trauma of postponement is very considerable.
Operations are being postponed today by the self-same doctors who were so quick to condemn the hospitals and ancillary workers in 1973.
Dr. Turner continued:
In addition, postponement in many cases lessens their chances of survival; often arrangements have had to be made for the children to be looked after or the husband has had to leave his work for this purpose.
The medical profession has great sympathy for hospital and ancillary staff, but this is not the way to set matters right. Many are doubtless unaware of the effects of their actions, but their leaders should know and advise accordingly. Leadership should imply a sense of responsibility but this is sadly and disastrously missing".
If those words were true in 1973, they are even more true today when those self-same doctors, who were so quick off the mark to condemn the ancillary workers and to point out the disastrous consequences to their patients, are doing precisely the same thing. They are the people who should know what the consequences to their patients will be.
Today the doctors are engaged in a political strike and are challenging Parliament. They are engaged in a shoddy exercise to promote their own self-interest, and in doing so they are holding the sick to ransom.
Where are the letters to The Times now? Where is the condemnation from the Opposition Front Bench? Where are the banner headlines which we had in 1973 and which are sadly lacking today? When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the debate, she said that commercialism is a canker in the National Health Service. It is a cancer in the National Health Service, and we all know what we do with cancer—we cut it out, quickly. Labour Members expect the Secretary of State to wield her scalpel quickly and effectively. She knows that she has their unanimous and enthusiastic support.
Perhaps a warning ought to be given. The Government side of the House will brook no delay in the implementation of this party's policy to abolish pay beds from the National Health Service. Going further still, we on the Government side of the House see no part of our purpose

to be guaranteeing the existence of a private sector. We wish to see a health service that is truly a National Health Service that is motivated by the ideals and the principles with which it was established in the late 1940s and not by the mean, tawdry, petty personal advantage of the consultants, as exhibited by arguments of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.

Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will know, several hon. Members still wish to speak. No justice is done to the House when hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), speak for 20 minutes after your request to limit speeches to five or 10 minutes.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman raising a different point of order?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I should like to point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have been in the Chamber since 3.30 p.m. and—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. Dr. Vaughan.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: —many other hon. Members equally spoke for 20 minutes.

9.1 p.m.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: Surely we deserve and the National Health Service deserves something rather better than the deplorable speech to which we have just been subjected. We hear from the Secretary of State frequently about ideological spite. I can think of no better demonstration of ideological spite than the nonsense that has just come from the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk).
There is one thing I should like to have quite clear: the Opposition are as dedicated as anyone to the concept of the National Health Service. We are proud of it, and we shall do all that we can to see that it works. We believe that there is today overwhelming evidence of mismanagement and of lack of understanding by the present Government towards all professional people working in the health services. I am sorry to have to say that, and it makes me very sad.
I regret to say that I was deeply disappointed by the Secretary of State's speech. I must tell her that I found it strident and unconstructive and not what the NHS deserves. She described a National Health Service totally different from the health service that I know and hear about. I simply do not understand how she can say to us that she is not anxious about what is happening today when the President of the Royal College of Surgeons has found it necessary to write
This fight'—
that is, the private medicine fight—
must not be represented as Mrs. Castle's proposals versus the interests of the medical profession. It is Mrs. Castle's proposals versus the standards of medicine.
The right hon. Lady looks away.
It is Mrs. Castle's proposals versus the health of the community and the safety of patients.

Mrs. Castle: I shall look at the hon. Gentleman for the whole of the rest of his speech.

Dr. Vaughan: Does not that make one feel anxious?
But what is even more depressing is that the right hon. Lady appeared not to take in anything that was said to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). Unwittingly she demonstrated before us all just what the doctors, the nurses, the dentists and the administrators have said about her: that she is insensitive to their attitudes and their needs, that she does not understand how they think and work; and, above all, that she does not listen to what they have to say.
These are very serious charges. One hears them on every side today, and the right hon. Lady knows it. Her extraordinary statement earlier today that she is flattered by her unique position misses out, I suggest, her real achievement. For the first time in medical history she has united all the doctors in this country against her, and now the nurses and the administrators.
It seemed odd that when the Secretary of State was denouncing the Press she did not refer to the article in today's Daily Mail—the right hon. Lady does not look quite so happy now—referring to

collapsing morale in her own Department. No doubt the Minister of State will refer to that.
The right hon. Lady was particularly unfeeling and inaccurate about the junior hospital doctors. Does she not realise that they are not only complaining about money and the immense number of hours they work each week—over 100 in many cases, as she knows only too well. I should like to know what other group of workers would be prepared to work such hours. They will also tell her, if she will listen, how they feel cheated and misled by her unkept promises of this summer and how they are anxious about their future.
The Opposition understand only too well why the junior hospital doctors have acted as they have. The causes lie directly in the Secretary of State's hands. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, we deplore all industrial action in the health service, but the Secretary of State speaks with two voices. How bravely did she condemn industrial action when it was taken at the Westminster Hospital? Not at all. How loudly does she condemn the domestics who are refusing to feed the consultants at one hospital and the ambulance driver who refused to collect a collapsed patient because she was in a private home? We hear nothing about those matters from Labour Members.
Many parts of the Secretary of State's speech did not match the information we have. She said that the numbers of nurses coming into training were being increased. Is this so? My information is quite the opposite. The numbers have been increased for a very short time only and I understand that she is now instructing the training schools in some areas to reduce their intake by up to one-third because she is closing units. As she knows, there is likely to be considerable unemployment amongst nurses coming out of training in the next month or two, as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker).
The Secretary of State said at Blackpool:
The NHS is the unique expression of the unity of human society.


Those were splendid words. There is not much unity today between her and the junior doctors. She also said:
No other social policy expresses so completely our Socialist principles.
That is not what I hear. I am told that the state of the NHS is a perfect example of the disunity in society created by the Labour Party. Present Government policies express completely the destructive and vindictive nature of Socialist policies in health. I ask hon. Members opposite to try to understand what it is that is disturbing all these professional people. It is a simple truth that there cannot be treatment without doctors and nurses. There is no way round that. The Secretary of State is very willing to quote Aneurin Bevan. He recognised that there could not be good treatment unless doctors and nurses felt that their standards and opinions were respected and that the whole exercise was worth while, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said in his excellent speech.
In the past few months I have met very large numbers of doctors and nurses in different parts of the country. I am told the same story on every side-that it is not a question of money, although there is a shortage of resources but that medical and nursing morale is at stake. The Secretary of State simply does not seem to understand this.
I should like to give two typical examples. At a meeting of doctors—many of them were young consultants—I was told that after up to 12 years' specialist training to get to their present posts, which they had been looking forward to, they felt no enthusiasm and no confidence in their future. They felt that they did not have satisfactory facilities in which to be satisfactory consultants. Their views are not listened to, and, because of union pressure, many hospitals are now fully staffed with porters, domestics and secretaries, so that financial economies—which, quite rightly, are having to be made—are made by cutting down nursing and medical staffs and closing beds, which means fewer patients and longer waiting lists. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) referred to this matter.

Dr. M. S. Miller: If, as the hon. Gentleman says, those in the medical profess-

sion, particularly the consultants, are so disgruntled and are disillusioned with the National Health Service and with medicine, why are consultants applying to universites for their sons and daughters to take up medicine and why are there three or four times as many applicants to study medicine as there are places?

Dr. Vaughan: With due respect to a medical colleague, that is an irrelevant and pointless intervention. I shall deal with it when I come to the subject of emigration.
The consultants told me that by closing smaller hospitals we were closing the most economical and cost-effective units. This policy will further seriously handicap general practitioners, because they will not be able to investigate and treat their cases themselves. That will cause the waiting lists, which the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State says concerns her and which she wishes to reduce, to become even longer. Over and over again the consultants complain that there appears to be no sincerity about the way in which negotiations with them are conducted. That is what disheartens them most. They are fed up and are ready to explode on almost any issue. That is what has happened with the junior hospital doctors.
The other example is perhaps even more depressing. A group of nurses told me recently that they no longer felt as proud as they used to feel when asked what they did. They hesitate over saying that they are nurses. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh".] I am sorry, but that is true. I was as surprised as hon. Members opposite are as strident and aggressive about it Hon. Members opposite should do what I do—listen to the nurses, because I am telling the House what they told me.
The nurses told me that they were worried about the poor standard of nursing care that they are providing in some units. Even worse, they told me that, in their view, the standards of patient care were falling rapidly. I know from my experience that accidents occur regularly that a few years ago would have merited complete inquiries. Today, mistakes are so frequently made that no one takes any


notice of them. Everyone does his best to cover up mistakes.
Earlier today the Secretary of State referred to the NHS in detail. It is not the NHS which I knew. In such a situation it is not surprising that emigration is increasing rapidly. Sections of health work are being denuded of a generation of doctors, who are our seed corn, as it takes up to 12 years to train a specialist.
I wrote to the Secretary of State on 7th October about that matter. She kindly replied to me on 20th October. Her letter began "Dear Mr. Vaughan". I do not know whether that was a compliment. In her letter the right hon. Lady explained the difficulty in obtaining accurate information. She said that as she was anxious about the situation she had urgently asked the regional medical officers to conduct a special study. I am sure that she was right to do so. She said that in the year ending 30th September 1975, out of a total of 11,000 consultants, 64 United Kingdom consultants and 42 senior registrars had emigrated. On the face of it that does not appear too bad. However, I believe that those figures are a considerable underestimate, certainly according to the doctors to whom I have spoken.
As a result of the Secretary of State's letter, I looked into one speciality. The right hon. Lady might have done that since she mentioned the subject. I inquired into radiology, where at least 33 senior specialists, six Conservatives—I should say six consultants—[Laughter.] I must try to cheer up this gloomy situation. I discovered that 33 senior specialists and 27 senior registrars had emigrated—a total of 43. In the same year 131 radiologists passed the specialist fellowship examination. The Secretary of State may well laugh at those figures. I made one little joke, but the right hon. Lady thinks that the whole subject is amusing. She demonstrates again how unfeeling she is. In the first three months of this year, eight consultants and six senior registrars emigrated. This means that at least one-quarter to one-third of the British-trained supply will be lost eventually from the United Kingdom.
The situation is much worse in the Edinburgh and Great Ormond Street hospitals. The hospital at Edinburgh lost

three consultants, three senior registrars and two registrars, including two gold medallists, thereby denuding sections of those departments. It is sad that the staff who leave are the good people. They can obtain the good jobs. People smile when they are amused. They also smile when they are anxious. I should like to know the reason for the Secretary of State's smile.
Those figures are bad enough, but the profession tells me that it thinks that the true figures are much higher. In radiology we appear to be losing at least twice as many highly-trained X-ray specialists as expected—[Interruption]—Is the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) carrying on another debate?

Mr. John Mendelson: Yes, I should like to do so.

Dr. Vaughan: I shall not go into the problems of the falling quality in applicants which is making jobs even more difficult to fill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) does not wish to give way and he does not have to do so.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) must resume his seat.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson rose—

Dr. Vaughan: I shall not give way.
I shall not go into the problems of the filling of jobs. The falling quality of applicants is making many jobs extremely difficult to fill with suitable people. I have some horrifying figures which illustrate this. However, I ask the Secretary of State whether it is correct that she has just sent a circular to the anaesthetists asking them to lower their standards because of the difficulty of filling jobs. I should like to hear the answer to that question. Is it true? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
In radiology, of 79 posts vacant—that is, 14 per cent. of the total—50 were unfilled or unfillable. In 14 cases—that is, 20 per cent.—no appointment could be made because the standard of applicants was too low. I have the figures.
We have to consider how much the situation in the National Health Service is due to inflation and lack of resources. The Opposition are realists and accept that a great deal of the trouble does not lie with the Secretary of State but with the inflationary situation and the lack of resources. However, how much is due to mismanagement by the Government, to a complete absence of clear priorities—because I hear people say that they have no clear guidelines to which to work—and to the intrusion into medicine of political action, which the majority of people in the health service know to be irrelevant to the main needs of the National Health Service?
The pay bed issue is political. It is irrelevant to the main problems of the health service. We all know that there is a severe shortage of resources and that in the present economic situation economies will have to be made. These are matters for the Royal Commission. We have welcomed the setting up of the Royal Commission, but in our view it will be absolute nonsense if the Commission does not inquire into all the problems facing the National Health Service, especially that of pay beds.

Mr. Cronin: Mr. Cronin rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) spoke earlier in the debate and got in a great muddle because he clearly had not read the Expenditure Committee's report.
I come back, as I must again and again, to the point that over and above the material problems there is a widespread deep lack of confidence between all the health professions and the Secretary of State. We have no doubt that if the Government would conduct genuine negotiations with the professions, if they would see them as people who know what they are talking about because they have devoted their working lives to the service, this would transform the present situation.
There has been mismanagement on a huge scale. When one goes through the various consultations which are or are not supposed to have been taking place, one sees the extraordinary handling of the nurses' agencies, the handling of the memorandum on the management of hos-

pital waiting lists, the handling of the consultants' contracts, and now the handling of the junior hospital doctors. It is no wonder there is a crisis of confidence.
We hear a great deal about the Labour Party manifesto, but the people who really know the situation would not have put that in any manifesto today. The tragic consequence is that many doctors who know say that they now feel they are not dealing with rational people. They believe that one side is behaving without reason. Once that conclusion is reached, it opens the door to violent counter-measures, as we found with the junior hospital doctors. Hon. Gentlemen on the Government side may laugh and ridicule, but the National Health Service deserves something better from them. The morale of the National Health Service is at stake today.
I should like to end with these simple questions to the Government, each of which carries a simple answer. Why do not the Government admit that they have misjudged the situation and the feelings of the health professions? There is no harm in admitting that—it would cost no money—but it happens to be true.
Why not call on the good will of all doctors and nurses and take their advice—a kind of health coalition—and say that for the first time in recent months the Government will hold genuine discussions with a willingness to see and meet the profesisonal point of view? There is no harm in that. That is not what the Government say.
Why not condemn all militancy? There is no place for militancy in the care of the sick. If pursued, as it has been, it creates militancy in non-militant people. We are seeing that now among the junior hospital doctors who are not normally a militant group.
Why not admit that there is no reason why legislation on pay beds should not wait until the Royal Commission has reported?

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman said that that was irrelevant.

Dr. Vaughan: That would not cost any money.
Why not state publicly that, with the advice of the health professions, the Government will examine and set out immediate priorities, so that cuts are made with


the agreement and assistance of the professional groups, and that the yardstick for setting priorities—I ask the Secretary of State to finish her conversation, because this is very important—will be the care of patients, not administrative convenience?
Lastly, why do not the Government state publicly their support for professional freedom, because in that direction lies freedom for patients too?
It is because I do not expect that the Government will do any of these things that I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in support of the motion.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): Not for the first time, and not for the last presumably, the health service is declared by doctors to be on its last legs, on the edge of a precipice, going down a slippery slope—whatever metaphor comes first to their tongues when talking to the Press. Not for the first time either the emigration of doctors has been used as an example of their dissatisfaction".
Those are not my words but the words of The Economist.
In a recent editorial about the National Health Service The Times has robustly rejected talk that the NHS is on the edge of collapse. It says that
in primary medical care in particular it has few equals
and points out that in international terms the problems that the NHS faces at the moment—
soaring costs, uneven distribution and conflict between doctors and administrators—are widespread even in countries far more wealthy than Britain".
Even the fear about emigration which The Times says is real and which the Government have said they are concerned about has, according to The Times been too much exploited for purposes of propaganda.
The hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) have spoken in the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. I have listened to almost all the debate and, in marked contrast to many speakers from the Opposition back benches, they made a petty, personalised and propagandist attack on my right hon. Friend.
Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Lamborn) discussed the real issues. Others spoke about the problems of mental illness and mental handicap, and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) spoke about geriatrics. They know that the health service faces very difficult times, particularly in the next few years of financial difficulty.
I will take first the geriatrics. There are more than 6½ million people aged 65 or over in England and they comprise about 14 per cent. of the total population. Since 1961 the total population has grown by 7 per cent. The over-65s increased by more than 25 per cent., and that trend will continue. By 1980 nearly 15 per cent. of the population will be 65 or over. The number of over 75s—the heaviest users of health and personal social services—is expected to rise from about 5 per cent. of the total population to 5½ per cent. in 1980 and 6 per cent. by 1985. That means that the House must face an inescapable increase in demand affecting nearly every part of the health and personal social services, because those services are used mainly by the elderly.
We have not had much discussion of that problem. We have not had much discussion of how my right hon. Friend in the past 18 months has striven constantly to bring together the health and personal social services, to deal with the problems of cross-financing and integration between health and social services, has had to put up with the massive error of a reorganised health service, to which the Opposition contributed, and has sought at all times to make the health and personal social services work together.
We have heard only about doctors. What about the problems of social workers who throughout the country are facing financial stringencies? What about the case loads they face and their difficulties? Always from the Opposition we hear selective pleading. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke a little more realistically than he has before about the financial problems faced by the NHS. But in constantly bringing forward their constituency cases his hon. Friends pleaded for more resources. I get letter after letter asking for district general hospitals and letter after letter making local publicity about the health service.


Even at this late stage in the debate I plead for a better sense of proportion about the problems facing the NHS.
The medical profession can make a massive contribution. Hospital costs account for nearly 70 per cent. of total NHS costs. That gives an indication of the resources that could be released by making sensible economies. No one can make those economies better than can the medical profession.
To take one example; if in all areas the average length of stay in hospital were no higher than the average that applies in one quarter of the areas, the potential saving in marginal costs—mainly hotel costs—would be about £56 million. I do not give this example in the belief that all the savings needed could or should come from shorter stays. We face great problems and we need to look forward to the next few years with a spirit of preparedness to change our practices. Doctors must recognise that they make economic decisions every day of their lives.
Many matters have been raised in this debate, but let us deal first with agency nurses. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) talked about the wards that are being closed. Other Conservative Members have also raised this issue. However, they should be quite clear about what they used to say about agency nurses. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said:
I expect hospital authorities to keep their use of agency nurses to the minimum necessary to avoid serious adverse effects on services to patients."—[Official Report, 17th July 1973; Vol. 860, c. 69.]
Similar statements were made at the time. I should have made it plain that the right hon. Gentleman uttered those words when in office.
I have been asked to give the figures regarding agency nurses. The facts are clear. We have been carefully monitoring this matter over the 14 regional health authorities for the past few weeks. There seems to have been a reasonably smooth transition. With three exceptions there have been no reports of bed or ward closures as a result of the phasing out of agency nurses. At the Queen Elizabeth II Hospital at Welwyn a half-occupied ward of 15 beds has been temporarily closed and moved elsewhere. At Bishop's Stortford a 10-bed surgical ward has been

prematurely closed, but the ward was due for closure in any event. The third exception is at Lewisham Hospital, where two permanent staff members have resigned. It is open to debate whether those posts might have been filled by agency nurses. I know of no other cases, although they may exist. In the whole of the Mersey region, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Wallasey, there were only 20 to 25 agency nurses in employment when the new policy started. I believe that that puts the situation into a better sense of proportion.

Mr. Crouch: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what the situation would be in the London teaching hospitals if all agency nurses were withdrawn now? Is it not a fact that in the South-East Thames Regional Hospital Authority, on which I serve, 80 per cent. of the agency nurses are engaged in the three teaching hospitals on intensive care duties and on difficult shifts?

Dr. Owen: That is one of the reasons for that hospital authority having very high costs. Of course, we recognise the problem. London is one of the most difficult areas in which to phase out agency nurses. The hon. Gentleman serves on a regional hospital authority: does he want agency nurses phased out? All the authorities we have consulted on this matter want them phased out, including the London authorities.

Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking me a question in the middle of his speech. I am not holding a brief for the permanent continuance of agency nurses. However, no steps should be taken by the Ministers responsible for health to put in jeopardy the health of patients who are in teaching hospitals in London.

Dr. Owen: That is exactly the instruction we gave to health authorities. We told them that they should not put the lives of patients in jeopardy. None of them would wish us to do so, and the hon. Gentleman knows that well enough.
The issue of agency nurses has been shown up, as the Opposition know, to be minor. However, they do not seem to be able to make up their minds whether the issue of pay beds is a major matter, a matter of irrelevance, or the issue that changes the whole integrity of the freedom


of medical practice. It would be helpful to know exactly what they think.
What needs to be made clear to the House is that it is the policy of the Labour Party to separate private practice from National Health Service hospitals in an orderly and reasonable way. The total banning of private medical practice would be a major step. I must tell the House that neither I nor my right hon. Friend would be prepared to contemplate such a step. It is one thing for the Government and individuals to believe that private medical practice does not deserve the financial support of the State so as to be buttressed in its existence within the service; it is quite another thing to propose to abolish private medicine.
Not all doctors who engage in private practice do it for motives solely related to financial gain. Whether we like it or not, and even accepting the arguments put forward by the doctors and the BMA, it is an undoubted fact that many part-time consultants work long hours for the service far exceeding what one could normally consider to be their open-ended contractual obligation. Some doctors find genuine professional satisfaction in being able to undertake private practice. I have never practised privately and nor have I wanted to do so, but I recognise that the belief of the great majority of doctors that the existence of private practice, however small, in some way safeguards the independence of their profession is a factor that no Government can or should ignore.
The Government have not ignored that factor. The profession's belief is strongly and passionately held. Much of the fire and fury coming from the profession stem from the ability of the BMA to misrepresent the policy of separation and to make many moderate doctors believe that the Government intend to abolish private medicine.
This view has been held by Opposition Members. Doctors are persistently told in propaganda reminiscent of that which came from the British Medical Association in 1946 to 1948 that the Government are in favour of the abolition of private practice. That is not the Government's intention. It is in order to convince the medical profession that this is not our intention that we have agreed, as Aneurin

Bevan agreed, to maintain in legislative form a commitment that no change to abolish private practice could be under taken without separate distinct legislation, and that safeguard would be written into any legislation—

Mr. Norman Fowler: If the Minister is claiming that the BMA is deceiving doctors, how does he explain the fact that 17 medical organisations of which the BMA is but one, were all unanimous in their opposition to the Government's pay bed policy?

Dr. Owen: The profession has a vested interest in the matter, but not all doctors think the same. Even the BMA's own poll of doctors showed that they could claim only 75 per cent. support. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not condemning a poll of doctors. I believe that a policy of separation of private practice within NHS hospitals offers one of the few opportunities we have of ending a serious division of opinion within the NHS set-up.
Opposition Members constantly seek to portray the situation as a battle between the Government—particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services—and the medical profession. It is nothing of the sort. The facts are clear—namely, that ever since 1948, when a compromise was arrived at, this question has been a festering sore, and that sore has grown worse in the last few years. Why else did the House of Commons in 1971 in its Expenditure Committee Report take as its subject private practice within NHS hospitals?
As has been said already today, that Committee took a great deal of evidence on this issue. It divided strictly on party political lines. But when the then Tory Government came to answer that debate, their spokesman came down on a balance of judgment in favour of keeping the existing situation. That is a far cry from saying that a decision to separate private practice from the NHS challenges the whole future of the medical profession.
We have heard all these slogans before. These were the slogans we heard in the years from 1946 to 1948. We are now hearing the same kind of misrepresentation. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, who goes to Blackpool and makes a commitment to restore pay beds understands the divisions. It is not merely the nursing


unions that feel so strongly about pay beds—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about NALGO?"] That organisation represents a great many administrators, but it is not just the unions that adopt such a view. There is a substantial body of opinion that believes in separation of private practice from the National Health Service—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] I refer to many major newspapers, many doctors and also to the Royal College of Nursing. That college now says that it would like the policy to be conducted by agreement. There does not seem much chance of it, although I hope that it can be done by a measure of agreement. The Patients' Association does not oppose the idea. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who are they?"] When I hear a comment such as "who are they?", I realise that some Tory Members seem to think that the only people who matter are a small group of doctors.
Doctors are very important in the National Health Service and we must rely on their co-operation. I would strongly reject any policy that started to be anti-doctor. There is no future in that. There is a great deal of sympathy on this side of the House for the cause of junior hospital doctors. If this debate has achieved one thing, it has eventually got out of the Opposition that they recognise that the issue facing the country about junior hospital doctors goes far wider than the NHS or the junior hospital doctors and involves the whole integrity of the present voluntarily agreed pay policy. At least we have got this out of the Opposition.
As to the question of pay beds there is a chance that a reasonably conducted policy, a phased separation, as we intend to introduce it in this House, could solve the problems of private practice for decades.
We all know that there is an interface problem between private practice and the NHS. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the Royal Commission can look at that interface and discuss the difficult problems and maybe we can reach agreement eventually on the parameters of that interface.
My right hon. Friend has offered to consult the medical profession without any preconditions. She has asked them to come and discuss these problems. We

have constantly tried to reach agreement. It is over 18 months since the Government came into office. During those 18 months my right hon. Friend has been criticised by many people for not phasing out pay beds. She has been criticised by people who believe that it can be done instantaneously. She has sought to proceed as far as possible by agreement.
When the doctors asked for a joint working party, my right hon. Friend established one and we tried to discuss in that working party how to phase out pay beds by agreement. We offered joint waiting lists to try to stop the queue-jumping of private practice. It looked for a moment as if we would reach agreement on joint waiting lists. It is hard to see how serious objection can be taken to such a policy. The profession's negotiators, despite the problems which they were fair enough to bring forward, thought that it might be possible to reach agreement. Months later they went back on that agreement, just as they have gone back on so much else in the discussions.
Let us contrast the way in which the right hon. Lady the present Leader of the Opposition, when Secretary of State for Education and Science, handled a similar difficult issue. When she came into office, did she consult the teachers about their policy on comprehensive education? Not a bit of it. She withdrew the controversial Circular 10/65 without any consultations at all and embittered the teaching profession.
What I am attacking is the belief, constantly and sedulously spread by those on the benches opposite, that my right hon. Friend has not consulted the medical profession. She has bent over to try to reach agreement on this issue and has been met by a medical profession that is not prepared to discuss these issues.
It may be that the Labour Government have more problems with the doctors than does the Conservative Party, but let that party be under no illusion. The problem of pay beds in the NHS would not just disappear if there were ever to be—I hope not—a change of Government. The Conservative Party too would face this problem.
It does nothing but harm to the NHS to have a division between the staff of


the NHS. This is why the problem has reached such a proportion. [An hon. Member: "You started it."] We did not start this. The hon. Gentleman should look at the history of it. This issue came to the fore in a Select Committee of this House in 1971 and in the nurses' pay dispute in May and June of 1974. It came about because many nurses, besides feeling a resentment about their salaries, felt a real dissatisfaction about a system which allowed scarce skills to be allocated within the NHS not on the basis of need but on the basis of ability to pay.
Opposition Members may find it difficult to understand that there are many nurses who deeply resent that in a National Health Service hospital—[Interruption.) There are many nurses who are quite prepared to nurse private patients in private hospitals, and some may say that that is a little illogical.
The facts of life are that in a democracy we allow variation and differences of view. But what nurses find difficult to accept is that within an NHS hospital, using the same operating theatre and having the same nurses and the same X-ray apparatus, it should be possible for a patient to be admitted in one week because he can pay, although another patient who cannot pay should have to wait a year or even two years.

Mr. Crouch: Mr. Crouch rose—

Dr. Owen: No; I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman because he is a member of a regional health authority and his views deserve respect.
It is now time that the House asked itself why we are having this debate—

Mr. F. A. Burden: Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham) What about the foreigners?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) asks about foreigners. This country has an international reputation for providing skilled medical treatment for those who cannot always get it in their own countries.

Mr. Burden: So they can jump the queue.

Dr. Owen: They do not jump the queue. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that no foreigner can come and be treated in a NHS hospital if that is

likely to be to the detriment of a NHS patient. What my right hon. Friend has said is that if there is a skilled surgeon or physician with a unique experience in a rare disease, we should make that knowledge available to people from other countries without payment for the individual consultant, as is done by whole-time people in the NHS at the moment, and that any fees paid to the consultant should go to the hospital. That is a principle which the Opposition find hard to understand.
What is the history of the medical profession's relations with the State? In a book entitled "Doctors and State Medicine", Gordon Forsyth writes about 1946 and 1948:
In retrospect it was a sordid squabble not lessened in its distasteful nature by the rank hypocrisy of some of the BMA's expressed fears.
Lord Platt, a distinguished physician, said:
A generation of doctors had been taught to disparage British medicine, to regard the Ministry of Health as its enemy, and to speak of the Health Service in terms of contempt. The profession had been brought down to the mentality of strike action.
That is what happened in 1946 and 1948. On this occasion it has not happened, it need not happen, and I trust that it will not happen.
Like other professions, the medical profession may often disagree with the policy of the Government of the day. But its members would be most unwise not to sit round a table to discuss the mechanisms for introducing such a policy even if they disagreed with it. The Government are open-minded about these matters and are prepared to discuss the methods and means whereby this policy can be conducted.
I now turn to the personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Speaking in this House on one occasion, the late Aneurin Bevan said:
It has been suggested that one of the reasons why the medical profession are so stirred up at the moment is because of personal deficiencies of my own. I am very conscious of these. They are very great. Absence of introspection was never regarded as part of a Celtic equipment; therefore, I am very conscious of my limitations. But it can hardly be suggested that conflict between the British Medical Association and the Minister of the day is a consequence of any deficiencies that I possess, because we have never been able yet to appoint a Minister of Health with


whom the BMA agreed. My distinguished fellow countryman"—
he meant that distinguished Liberal, David Lloyd George—
had quite a little difficulty with them. He was a Liberal, and they found him an anathema. Then there was Mr. Ernest Brown who was a Liberal National, whatever that might mean, representing a Scottish constituency.
Perhaps the Scottish National Party should consider this.
They found him abominable. As for Mr. Willink, a Conservative representing an English constituency, they found him intolerable.
I am a Welshman, a Socialist representing a Welsh constituency, and they find me even more impossible. Yet we are to assume that one of the reasons why the doctors are taking up this attitude is because of unreasonableness on my part. It is a quality which I appear to share in common with every Minister of Health whom the British Medical Association have met."—[Official Report, 9th February 1948; Vol. 447, c. 36–7.]
What did hon. Members opposite do when they were in office? They changed their Minister of Health every year for 13 years so that they could never spend enough time in office to have a disagreement with the BMA.
Now we come to the Liberal Party, that great radical party. I am sorry that its Leader is not here, because we gather that tonight the Liberal Party intends to vote against my right hon. Friend. What are the grounds? They are that my right hon. Friend will not make a change in the terms of reference of the Royal Commissison appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister by the Queen. That is the charge. The Liberals agree with us over pay beds; they fought two elections on the same policy as we did. I agreed with almost every word of the speech from their health spokesman. The only conclusion to which one is led is to ask why they can even contemplate voting against my right hon. Friend.
The previous Leader of the Liberal Party once promised that he would march his troops towards the sound of gunfire. A whiff of grapeshot across the bows of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) seems to be sufficient to drive him from supporting a policy which has to be fought for. His predecessor in that office, David Lloyd George, had this to say about an encounter with the doctors.
I do not think there has been anything like it since the days when Daniel went into the lion's den. I was on the dissecting table

for hours but I can assure you they treated me with the same civility as the lions treated my illustrious predecessar.
If the Liberals claim to be a radical party, they should recognise that their credentials will be tested when there is a little sound of gunfire and that they should support a policy on which they fought elections.
I am not sure what the Scottish Nationalist Party thinks. I am not sure whether it intends to support my right hon. Friend, but it has supported—

Mr. Cyril Smith: Would not the Minister agree that the Liberals also fought an election on a policy calling for the successful management of the health service as we know it? Does he not know that it is the policy of his Government over pay beds which is one of the major obstacles to the success of the health service?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends voted a few months ago for our policy on pay beds in a debate in the House. I could say to them, "By all means criticise us if, when we produce legislation, you dislike the way in which we deal with it. You warned us that that would be the case." But we have not produced that legislation. We are still consulting the profession. It seems a little early to run away from the policy tonight.
As for the Scottish National Party, its spokesman said that it supported the policy on pay beds and he paid tribute to the health service in Scotland, although he did not see fit to mention that the expenditure per head on the NHS in Scotland is 19 per cent. higher than in England. He paid tribute to the work of the hospital doctors, however, and there was nothing in his speech to justify a vote against my right hon. Friend.
We are therefore left to ask why this motion has been tabled. The views of the Conservative Party on pay beds have at least been consistent. We know that they are in favour of privilege, but this is a strange motion. They think that it is the only thing on which they could get the House to agree—a petty, rather spiteful, personalised attack on my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend has introduced a pension scheme which has the support of all hon. is Members. That hardly the


action of a divisive politician who is not prepared to listen to anyone. She has improved the financing of the health service from 4·9 per cent. of the gross national product to 5·4 per cent. in one year—the greatest record of any Government with responsibility for the NHS. She deserves the support of this House.

With the NHS facing difficult problems, I hope that we shall reject this motion tonight.

Question put,
That the salary of the Secretary of State for Social Services should be reduced by half:—
The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 287.

Division No. 365.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Knight, Mrs Jill


Aitken, Jonathan
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Knox, David


Alison, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lamont, Norman


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lane, David


Arnold, Tom
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fox, Marcus
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Freud, Clement
Lawson, Nigel


Baker, Kenneth
Fry, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer


Banks, Robert
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Beith, A. J.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lloyd, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Luce, Richard


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Berry, Hon Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan
McCrindle, Robert


Biffen, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Macfarlane, Neil


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
MacGregor, John


Blaker, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bottomley, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Madel, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mates, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grieve, Percy
Maude, Angus


Brittan, Leon
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Grist, Ian
Mawby, Ray


Brotherton, Michael
Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, Sir John
Mayhew, Patrick


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter


Buck, Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith
Miscampbell, Norman


Budgen, Nick
Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bulmer, Esmond
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moate, Roger


Burden, F. A.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Montgomery, Fergus


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Havers, Sir Michael
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geraint


Channon, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Churchill, W. S.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Henderson, Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cockcroft, John
Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey


Cope, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Nelson, Anthony


Cordle, John H.
Hordern, Peter
Neubert, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Newton, Tony


Corrie, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John


Costain, A. P.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Onslow, Cranley


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John
Osborn, John


Crouch, David
Hurd, Douglas
Page, John (Harrow West)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pardoe, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Drayson, Burnaby
James, David
Penhaligon, David


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Percival, Ian


Durant, Tony
Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Dykes, Hugh
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Elliott, Sir William
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Raison, Timothy


Emery, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


Eyre, Reginald
Kilfedder, James
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Fairgrieve, Russell
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fell, Anthony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)




Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Trotter, Neville


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Speed, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher


Rifkind, Malcolm
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Sproat, Iain
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stainton, Keith
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wakeham, John


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wall, Patrick


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walters, Dennis


Sainsbury, Tim
Stokes, John
Watt, Hamish


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, John


Scott, Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Welsh, Andrew


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Tebbit, Norman
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Shepherd, Colin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Younger, Hon George


Shersby, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hon P. (Hendon S)



Sims, Roger
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sinclair, Sir George
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Adam Butler and


Skeet, T. H. H.
Townsend, Cyril D.
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Anderson, Donald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Archer, Peter
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Armstrong, Ernest
Delargy, Hugh
Hunter, Adam


Ashley, Jack
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dempsey, James
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Atkinson, Norman
Doig, Peter
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dormand, J. D.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Janner, Greville


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bates, Alf
Dunnett, Jack
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bean, R. E.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Edge, Geoff
John, Brynmor


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bishop, E. S.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
English, Michael
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Boardman, H.
Ennals, David
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Booth, Albert
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Judd, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kaufman, Gerald


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Evans, John (Newton)
Kelley, Richard


Bradley, Tom
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kerr, Russell


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kinnock, Neil


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lambie, David


Buchan, Norman
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lamborn, Harry


Buchanan, Richard
Flannery, Martin
Lamond, James


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ford, Ben
Lee, John


Campbell, Ian
Forrester, John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Canavan, Dennis
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Cant, R. B.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carmichael, Neil
Freeson, Reginald
Lipton, Marcus


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Litterick, Tom


Cartwright, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Loyden, Eddie


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
George, Bruce
Luard, Evan


Clemitson, Ivor
Gilbert, Dr John
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Ginsburg, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Coleman, Donald
Gould, Bryan
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Gourlay, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Concannon, J. D.
Graham, Ted
McElhone, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Grant, John (Islington C)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Corbett, Robin
Hamilton, James (Both well)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mackintosh, John P.


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cronin, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
McNamara, Kevin


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Magee, Bryan


Cunningham, G. (Islington s)
Heffer, Eric S.
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hooley, Frank
Mahon, Simon


Dalyell, Tam
Horam, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Davidson, Arthur
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Marquand, David


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Huckfield, Les
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)




Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Radice, Giles
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tierney, Sydney


Meacher, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tomlinson, John


Mendelson, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomney, Frank


Mikardo, Ian
Roderick, Caerwyn
Torney, Tom


Millan, Bruce
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tuck, Raphael


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rooker, J. W.
Urwin, T. W.


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Roper, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Rose, Paul B.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Molloy, William
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Moonman, Eric
Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sandelson, Neville
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Watkins, David


Moyle, Roland
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Watkinson, John


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Weetch, Ken


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Weitzman, David


Newens, Stanley
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wellbeloved, James


Noble, Mike
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Oakes, Gordon
Sillars, James
White, James (Pollok)


Ogden, Eric
Skinner, Dennis
Whitehead, Phillip


O'Halloran, Michael
Small, William
Whitlock, William


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Orbach, Maurice
Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Ovenden, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Owen, Dr David
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Padley, Walter
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Palmer, Arthur
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Park, George
Stott, Roger
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Parker, John
Strang, Gavin
Woodall, Alec


Parry, Robert
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Woof, Robert


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Pendry, Tom
Swain, Thomas
Young, David (Bolton E)


Phipps, Dr Colin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)



Prescott, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas. Ron (Bristol NW)
Mr. David Stoddart.

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Hare Coursing Bill may be proceeded with at this Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

DIRECT GRANT SCHOOLS

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Direct Grant Grammar Schools (Cessation of Grant) Regulations 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1198), dated 21st July 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th July, be annulled.
The reason why we are debating an issue of this importance so late at night is the responsibility of the Government. I suppose that we should be grateful that they have given this motion a slightly higher priority than the Hare Coursing Bill.
By using regulations, which is a procedure intended under Section 100 of the 1944 Act to provide grants for these schools, and by using this procedure to do away with them, the Government are using regulations correctly according to the letter of the law but they are using them quite contrary to its spirit. A change of this magnitude should have been made by legislation.
If the regulations are confirmed tonight, a principal responsibility will rest upon the members of the Liberal Party if they support the Government in this policy.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale) rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have hardly begun, but as it is the hon. Gentleman who wishes to interrupt me I will give way.

Mr. Smith: In the last Division 12 Liberals voted with the Official Opposition, but the Government still had a majority of 20. Does the hon. Gentleman persist in blaming us for what will happen in the Division on these regulations?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If 12 Liberals support me in the Lobby later I shall be well satisfied.
If the regulations are confirmed tonight, I suppose it will be some kind of parliamentary political victory. If the regulations are confirmed tonight, leaving the politics of it aside there will be a major defeat for education, and it will be a major set-back to the cause of maintaining and raising the quality of education in our schools.
There may indeed even be a political penalty, because no doubt, although the destruction of the grammar schools—the vendetta against the direct grant schools is a part of that—is the official policy of the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, it is not favoured by many Labour and Liberal voters in the country and we shall see that when they have a chance to show their hands in the local elections next year.
To show the division within the Government I give the Secretary of State this quotation:
I personally hope that where grammar schools are of adequate size in reasonable buildings and with a good tradition they will be left undisturbed. They are in themselves good educational units which are not easy to come by and they act as a bridge between the general level of the State sector and the private sector. It will be fully in accord with both the liberal outlook of the Labour Party and the flexible tradition with great play left to local initiative of British education.
Those are the words of the present Home Secretary. They show that this sudden conversion to a vendetta against the grammar schools does not have deep roots within the Labour Party.
Whatever the political sanction may be, the educational penalty will be grave and cumulative. At a time when there has never been greater anxiety amongst parents and teachers about what the educational system is achieving and where it is heading, it is surely crazy to do away with schools which are of proven worth academically, in the traditions of discipline and in the moral teaching which they provide. They are being done away with on grounds that have nothing to do with education. They are being done away with on grounds of social engineering.
Even that aim will not be achieved, because Professor Jencks and other academics who have studied this problem have shown conclusively that what determines equality is not school but primarily the home. So we shall lose these schools, and we shall gain nothing in return.
What is the offence of the direct grant schools? It is not that they have failed; it is that they have succeeded. That is their crime. That is why we are being asked to pass sentence of death upon them tonight.
First, the academic record of the direct grant schools is unequalled by any other


group of schools in the country. Thirty-two per cent. of the pupils gain university places as against only 20 per cent. in independent schools, 19 per cent. in maintained grammar schools an 4 per cent. in comprehensive schools. In addition to that university record, 30 per cent. of direct grant school leavers go on to other forms of higher education. That constitutes a unique academic record.
The Secretary of State may say that only a small number of children are concerned; but the number is not as small as all that. It is well over 100,000, which may be small in relation to the total number but not in relation to the provision of sixth forms. As the Donnison Report pointed out, the direct grant schools account for 10 per cent. of sixth formers. What is important about these schools is not only what they do for the pupils who attend them but the fact that they give a service to those who have never entered through their doors because they provide two things—centres of academic excellence, which benefit the whole system, and, equally important, standards of comparison by which the performance of other types of school can be judged.
Secondly, the direct grant schools provide an element of choice and variety within the maintained system. Of course it is limited—I do not dispute that—but that is not an argument for doing away with them altogether.
The third contribution of the direct grant schools, as the Home Secretary has so rightly said, is to provide a bridge between the independent and the maintained sectors so that the divisions between these sectors are softened instead of being exacerbated. They provide opportunities for children of a far wider range of background than those who attend independent schools or neighbourhood comprehensive schools.
Perhaps the most famous direct grant school in the country is Manchester Grammar School. The home background of the pupils there is interesting.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): Hear, hear.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am unnerved by that support, but I shall continue.
The home background of the pupils is made up as follows: managerial, 16·7 per cent.; professional, 20·1 per cent.; scholastic, 14·9 per cent.; clerks, 11·9 per cent.; commercial, 10·1 per cent.; engineers and draughtsmen, 11 per cent.; industrial workers, 8·1 per cent.; unskilled, 2·4 per cent.; unknown, 4·8 per cent. That is as wide a range of people as will be found in any school in the country. If there is criticism from the Government that that range is not wide enough, they should be devoting their efforts to widening, not destroying, the institution.
I know from my experience of speaking at direct grant and other grammar schools that it is nonsense to suggest, as the Secretary of State has suggested, that these schools are the preserve of the rich and the privileged, of the great and the good. If that were so, how could it be that such a high proportion of the Labour Cabinet was educated at them? I do not utter that as a reproach, but surely it must show that these schools provide a ladder of opportunity for those who come from families of modest means to be able to advance and, in certain cases, to escape the only alternative, which is a bad neighbourhood comprehensive school. Why do they knock away the ladder for others, having used it themselves? That is what will inevitably happen.
Already half of the direct grant schools have opted for independence. The total figure is likely to reach 100. That means that this type of academic education will be available in the future only to those who are able to afford it. The paradox of the situation is that in pursuit of egalitarian theories the Labour Party is creating more inequality, not less.
The direct grant schools make a fourth contribution. They meet special needs which are not fully met within the maintained system. I shall give two examples to illustrate my meaning. I refer first to boarding accommodation. The direct grant schools provide 10,000 places. Those are not places for the children of the rich. They are for the children of those in the Services, those working in the EEC, and others who for one reason or another must live abroad. They are provided at a cost which is much less than that of places in private schools. Boarding accommodation is not provided in the maintained sectors. Local authorities


cannot provide it by themselves. When the schools are taken over by individual local authorities they will not be able to provide boarding accommodation, as that needs a consortium of from three to five local authorities.
These schools meet another special need. I refer to the provision of single-sex schools. Not all parents want single-sex schools for their children. Some parents want it. They may be few but they are an important minority. The direct grant schools cater to the important minority who want the element of choice. If this policy is adopted this is another area of choice and variety which will vanish.
All that has been achieved not only at no cost to the taxpayer but at a positive saving of money to the taxpayer. The fees which parents pay for these schools are probably between £12 million and £15 million. Perhaps the Secretary of State will give us the most up-to-date figures. These schools save the education service large sums of money by providing sites and buildings at no cost to the State. They raise their own funds. They are not allowed to receive capital sums from the education service. All that will be put at risk if this foolish policy is persisted with. What a policy of priorities it is! Would not the Secretary of State be much better employed devoting some of that money, which he must now spend on direct grant schools, to restoring the cuts in the nursery schools programme, which stood at £30 million when the Leader of the Opposition left office but has now been cut by the Government to £9 million?

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I shall do so, with the hon. Gentleman's help. I have already received intimation that a large number of Conservative authorities will not use their allocation out of that sum of £9 million. If I send a list to the hon. Gentleman, will he write to those authorities and persuade them to look at the situation again?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Local authorities are unable to take that allocation because of the inflation which the Government have failed to control and which makes it impossible for local authorities to run even skeleton local education services, let alone expand them. That does not require

a letter from me, as the local education authorities know where the responsibility lies. It lies upon the Government, who have failed to check inflation at its source.
It is equally important that these schools should co-exist happily with comprehensive schools. The creaming off argument, which has been deployed so often by Government supporters, does not apply in this situation, where fewer than 5 per cent. of the children in a given area attend grammar or direct grant schools. In my constituency, Chelmsford, grammar and comprehensive schools are supported by all the educational leaders in the community—including the heads of comprehensive and grammar schools—because the numbers of pupils are such that the argument that a true comprehensive school cannot emerge does not apply. The Bristol Research Project confirms this judgment.
There are seven direct grant schools in Bristol, which cater for only 4·8 per cent. of the children in the city. Indeed, 78 per cent. of the children with verbal reasoning quotients of above 115 attend the non-direct grant schools. Therefore, one can deduce from that example that the direct grant schools do not pose a threat to the comprehensive school or the emergence of a comprehensive school.
However, what does pose a threat is the setting up in a city like Bristol of a series of rigid zones which prevent the children from one zone passing into another. Such a system would deprive a school of an academic top much more effectively than any direct grant school ever could.
In brief, that is the case for the direct grant schools. There is no educational case for abolishing them.
Why are the Government proceeding in this way? I believe that they are doing so because they have abandoned every other pledge in their manifesto and education has to take the burden in this case.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State four important questions, but no doubt others will be raised by my hon. Friends who will intervene in the debate.
First, how does the Secretary of State propose to fulfil the pledge of his predecessor, given in this House on 11th March, to the effect that arrangements to


safeguard the interests of pupils already at school will be made? Will he tell the House what arrangements have been made to continue courses already started?
Secondly, and equally important, how does the Secretary of State propose to protect parents with children now at the schools against steep rises in fees if capitation grants are to be kept pegged at 1973 levels? Without an increase in those grants, how are facilities to be preserved at these schools in a period of unprecedented inflation?
Thirdly, what measures has the Secretary of State in mind to protect the jobs, the status and the salaries of head teachers and staff at these schools who opt for the maintained system at a time when we already have unprecedentedly high teacher unemployment?
Fourthly, will the Secretary of State confirm that under Section 18(1) of the 1944 Act and Section 6 of the 1953 Act local authorities have the right to continue to take up places at direct grant schools when they go independent?
The final issue is what is to happen to these schools in the future. The phasing out of the grants, according to these regulations, is to start in the autumn of 1976. That means that the policy of destruction will not be completed until 1984, which some people may think is an extraordinarily appropriate year. I trust that long before then this Government will be no more than an unhappy memory.
Therefore, the policy of the next Conservative Government is of extreme importance for the future of these schools. It is equally important that it is clearly understood. The next Conservative Government will re-open the direct grant school list. In doing so we shall be turning the clock forward so that opportunities to attend these schools are available to more children than ever before.
Secondly, we will give priority to returning to the list those schools which already enjoy direct grant status.
Thirdly, we will restore these schools on a statutory basis so that they are safeguarded by the highest protection which our constitution affords, which is by Act of Parliament. In that way, never again shall we have the shameful spectacle of some of our finest schools

being destroyed with the House of Commons able to give little more than an hour's debate to what future generations will rightly regard as an act of vandalism unprecedented in our educational history.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I propose to speak briefly on this matter as many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate.
I wish to speak particularly about one special group of schools which, by an accident of history and for no other reason, are direct grant schools—namely, the Catholic direct grant schools.
At present there are nearly 3,000 Catholic schools in this country. Of those, 2,639, catering for about 800,000 pupils, are voluntary aided, 56 are direct grant containing 39,000 pupils, and 347 are independent schools containing 86,000 pupils.
I support the Government's policy, which is correct for education generally and for the education of Catholic children. I declare my interest. My children go to Catholic aided comprehensive schools: primary, junior and senior high.
One terrible aspect about the way that opposition to the Government's policy has been whipped up has been that it is the implication of an attack upon religion and religious schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Government, implementing a policy started by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), have increased the grant to religious maintained schools. Indeed, when we were in Government before, my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) increased the grant to maintained Catholic and other religious schools.
The situation is that at the time of the 1944 Act a decision had to be made whether to become direct grant or to become voluntary aided, and some opted one way and others another. But the important point is that there is nothing in these regulations which in any way puts at risk the teaching of religion in Catholic or other denominational grant schools.
I regard it as the height of foolishness when people at the public schools jamboree of headmasters, or whatever it is called, say that the only schools in which


religion will be left will be in the independent sector. If we relied on the independent sector and the class of people that it represents, we would have very few people of the Catholic religion left in this country, because we have been betrayed by our so-called leaders on so many occasions in the past.
It is an insult to many Catholics engaged in teaching in voluntary aided schools—comprehensive, primary and some grammar—that, somehow or other, the education given by them to children in those schools is of inferior quality and of less excellence than that which is given by a chance of Fate in direct grant schools. In reorganisation there will be problems of geography, location and catchment areas, but nothing is at stake which affects the teaching of religion. If the State wanted to attack the teaching of religion in schools, the existence of any independent direct grant or voluntary aided school would not stand in its way. We live in a pluralistic society which gives parents the benefit of being able to make a choice—a real choice and not the artificial choice presented to us by the Opposition this evening.
In my area there is no opportunity for children of my religion to go to a Catholic direct grant school. There is no opportunity for thousands of children, Catholic or otherwise, to go to direct grant schools, because direct grant schools do not exist, and, if they did, it would be purely and simply because of their policy of choosing their pupils. There would be no real choice for parents. There never has been and never will be. The guarantees given by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) if ever the Conservatives come back into Government—which on their present showing is very doubtful—are a load of rubbish.
I make my brief intervention to ask my co-religionists, particularly the religious orders, to remember why many of them came to this country and why they started their schools. They came to teach impoverished working-class children. Why should they desert the children they came to teach and seek to go independent to teach the children of people who are well able to look after themselves? I ask the Irish Christian Bothers, who taught me, to go back to teaching working-class children. They did a good job, and

continue to do a good job in areas where it is desperately needed.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman has already spoken of the shortness of the debate. It must finish at 11.30 p.m., and at 11.15 p.m., the Minister will rise to reply. I appeal to hon. Members for five-minute speeches, such as the one we have just heard from the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), so that as many speakers as possible may be accommodated.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. R. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said that in his constituency there is no choice of going to a Catholic school. He was at one time in my constituency, where he had the choice of going to a Catholic direct grant school—there are two of the finest in the land—and he was educated at one by the Irish Christian Brothers.
I do not want to follow directly on what the hon. Gentleman said. I want to draw attention to the note on the Order Paper below the Prayer:
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments have not yet completed their consideration of the Instrument.
The Joint Committee has considered the Instrument and has asked for witnesses from the Department to come before it to explain how the regulations come within the power quoted in the preamble to the regulations.
The short point is that the Secretary of State has power by order to make grants, but has he the power by order to refuse to make them? The wording of the statutory power quoted in the preamble to the regulations is a little unusual. Section 100(1)(b) of the Education Act 1944 provides that the Secretary of State:
shall by regulations make provision…
(b) for the payment by him to persons other than local education authorities"—
which is always taken to refer to direct grant schools—
of grants in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the purposes of educational services".


In Section 100(1)(c) the Secretary of State—
shall by regulations make provision:—
(c) for the payment by him, for the purpose of enabling pupils to take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of any educational facilities available to them".
Therefore, the power is mandatory.
It is difficult to see how those words can be construed to mean that the Secretary of State may by regulation prohibit payment. Of course, he is left with a reasonable discretion as to the amount of payment. He also has power to make the maintenance of certain standards in the schools a condition of payment under subsection (3). However, he cannot pray that in aid to say that the order is valid. That would require him to make conditions which, if they were fulfilled, would entitle a school to payment of the grant, but no such thing is specified in the regulations. Eventually there will be no conditions which can be fulfilled to obtain those payments. Rightly, the Secretary of State does not appear to be acting under that power.
For myself, I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had taken exactly the opposite road and instead of abolishing the direct grant had extended it to the whole of the educational system, to all schools and to all pupils, abolishing the present system whereby education is financed by rates and the rate support grant. I have for some time advocated that expenditure on education should be borne by the Exchequer and that local authorities should no longer be required to find the two-thirds of educational expenditure out of the rates.

Mr. Mulley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree with the proposition that I could not do that by regulation.

Mr. Page: Indeed, but the right hon. Gentleman could do it by statute. That is what we are saying. It is our contention that the right hon. Gentleman should not have taken any step to abolish direct grant by order because he has not the power to do so.
The direct grant system or a per capita grant for each school in a district in place of the present rate and rate support grant system would have provided considerable advantages. First, such a system would relieve the ratepayer of the

burden of producing about £6,000 million. I accept that that would be at the expense of the taxpayer, but education is a national service far more than a local service. Secondly, it would encourage each school to develop into a scholastic entity. Direct grant grammar schools have shown that that is possible.
That is what the right hon. Gentleman could have chosen to do instead of abolishing the direct grant, instead of making regulations which I suspect are not within his powers under the statute. He may well be advised that they are ultra vires, that he has thereby increased the burden on the ratepayers and done nothing to improve education. In the circumstances of his acting ultra vires the House should annul the regulations tonight.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I support the Government on this issue. We made it clear in our manifesto that we intended to phase out the direct grant. In my judgment, any system of selection is a system of rejection to the majority of children.
Mention has already been made of Bristol. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) has done some research on the situation in Bristol between 1968 and 1972. During that period there were 433 non-Catholic free places awarded. About one-third of those places went to the independent schools. That left 314 places to be awarded to the children from primary schools. As there are 91 non-Catholic primary schools, it might be assumed there were three places to each school—but not a bit of it. About half of those places went to seven schools in Bristol residential areas where the wealthier people live. The other 84 schools shared the remaining places. Indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South has a map showing the primary schools from which the children came who took up these places, and over vast working-class areas there is not one little flag representing awards to children from those areas.
Faced with the demolition of the social mix argument, we have recently had in Bristol the use of the kind of statistical table offered by the Opposition Front Bench a little earlier in the debate, and it received from most people the same


kind of response in comparing pupil intake with the National Register social class definitions. But such figures have little meaning without more detail and comparisons, and unless we know from where the statistics come and where the free places fall within particular groups.
In any event, privilege relates to more than money. I do not believe one can justify privilege simply in terms of cost, as was suggested earlier. The efficacy of any school is better tested by an analytical statistical study as opposed to descriptive matter of the kind we have seen so far from the Opposition Front Bench. We need to consider a whole range of variables, including ability, opportunity to develop potential, attainment, privilege, status and so on. Achievement in relation to potential is an essential. The direct grant schools, on the other hand, are related to privilege and status and are a self-perpetuating elitist system. They are also self-protecting by offering crumbs from the table to a few of the IQ-defined "bright youngsters" from working-class homes in order to bolster a sagging achievement in comparison with the State sector.
The Opposition Front Bench are worried that if they refuse the bright boys from working-class areas they will be unable to quote the kind of statistics quoted this evening. The argument of achievement related to privilege cannot be resolved because the guardians of privilege will not give access to information which inevitably will be self-defeating to their own arguments. If direct grant schools cannot exist on their own, public money should not be used to perpetuate the system. If those involved in these schools are concerned about social mix and about the advancement of education, they should come into the State system. If they mean what they say, that is what they should do. In my judgment, while some of the decision-makers in our society opt out of the State system and buy their way into education, we shall not achieve the kind of comprehensive system we deserve and very much need.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: I should like to begin by quoting an educationalist called Rudolf Klein, who wrote:
It is possible to have a system of education based on selection by ability which steers

resources towards academically talented children, and it is possible to have a system which gets rid of selection by having schools which take all comers. What cannot be done is to combine the two.
There is not much doubt that the phasing out of the direct grant schools is a soft and easy target for those who really wish to tackle the private sector but fear the consequence of doing so.
It has to be admitted that the private sector is probably the most divisive element in education at the moment. But as a Liberal I maintain that we must have the right to spend our money as we will. It would be quite iniquitous for the Government, who have already done so much to interfere with our way of life, now to decide how we can or how we cannot spend money. Anyone who wants to buy education should have the right to do so, just as anyone who wants a second car, a third house or a fourth television set should have the right to buy those things.
The first report of the Royal Commission on Public Schools said:
Public schools should not be abolished or left as they are but integrated into the national educational system, the main factor being the allocation of boarding places according to need and not ability to pay.
We acknowledge that there is an anomaly in the direct grant schools, and as a party we support the principle of the Government's decision to phase out the grant from autumn 1976.
Let me also say that, while we support comprehensive schools, we deplore the threatened closure of specialist schools—brought up by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)—because the specialist schools and boarding schools successfully meet the different needs of the students. It is impossible to support comprehensives, which we do, and believe that the existence of a more eclectic form of education running alongside can do anything but harm. The constant assertion of Conservative spokesmen that direct grant schools do not harm the public sector should be laid to rest.
As The Times Educational Supplement said in October last year:
The bulk of direct grant does not go to helping individual parents but in reducing the overall level of the fees, and in fact for those who pay for their children to go to direct grant schools the local education authority contributes an average of £120 per annum.


That money is taken from the education budget.
My party's criticism of the phasing out is that it was too sudden and too inflexible. Were it not for that, I think all my colleagues who support the principle would vote with me with the Government in the No Lobby. [Interruption.] Why should it be regarded as weakness when a man is honest enough to announce that there are members of his party who have doubts? I totally oppose that attitude. It is strength to have the honesty to admit that in certain sectors those two types of education can run alongside perfectly well, but that by and large the principle is one which is destructive.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I should like to put an eclectic question. On what side is the Liberal Party voting tonight?

Mr. Freud: If that is an eclectic question, I hate to think what a common or garden question would be, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should await the Division.
The phasing out period is reasonable; schools wishing to become independent would be free of Government finance in the early 1980s. It is the period for decision that was too short to allow gainful negotiations between the schools and the local education authorities. I feel that even those hon. Members who would give no quarter to the direct grant system would agree that it is in the interests of local authorities and the public purse to ensure a satisfactory transition; this speed of destruction is extremely wasteful financially.
I have said that the Liberal Party is committed to the principle of non-selective secondary education. We welcomed the move away from the old tripartite system, with its waste of talent, its social divisiveness and the insistence that there was a single age at which to gauge the academic potential of a child. We welcomed the introduction of a genuine, carefully planned comprehensive system, and at the time this was generally accepted by all parties, even by the Tories. But the Tories have conducted a sustained campaign of denigration ever since. It has been this denigration against comprehensive schools which has been a considerable factor in making the public feel comprehensive apprehensive.

Even the lip-service that they once patronisingly paid to the comprehensive principle is now barely observed.
I come now to three myths about the direct grant schools, and we have heard them again tonight from the hon. Member for Chelmsford. The first one is that they have a wide social mix. Let me explain: one child in 13 at a direct grant school comes from a semi-skilled or unskilled worker's family. I do not call that a wide social mix. In fact, the subsidy is predominantly one which helps the well-to-do from funds which are provided by all classes of society.
The second myth is that the system gives parental choice. By a process of rigorous academic selection at an age which has no scholastic significance—though I suppose that one has to take some age—97 per cent. of children are excluded from any chance of going to a direct grant school. Can one call that parental choice of any significant order? What is more, the choice is further restricted geographically. For instance, there are only four direct grant schools in Wales, and if anyone in Wales wants his child educated at a co-educational non-denominational school, there is not one.
The third myth is that the direct grant school remains the guarantor of academic excellence. By and large, that is true. But I think that it is explicable more in terms of intake than tuition. The more selective the system, the better the results obtained. It is equally true that educational attainment is heavily influenced by home background. The social class, as ever, is the safest indicator of scholastic success.
I return to Rudolf Klein and his assertion, with which I began my remarks. He said that it was possible to have an education system based on selection by ability, and one which eliminated selection and took all comers, but that what could not be done was to combine the two. At the moment, we are combining the two. But what Klein meant was combining the two systems successfully. We have the two systems running side by side unsuccessfully.
The creaming off of talent, splendid as it is for the creamed-off students, does infinite damage to those left behind, to those who are rejected. It not only does academic harm. It wrecks much more.


It wrecks the football teams and the cricket teams. It wrecks friendships. It wrecks the academic standards. It wrecks those kids who look to someone, for example, at primary school and lose them in the secondary sector.
The two-party dogfight over education should be ended. In 1972, when the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State, she abolished free milk and at the same time increased the direct grant. Now the Government are hastily phasing out the direct grant—but not a word about restoring milk. If an election is called before the transition of direct grant schools into independence or the State system, and the Conservatives should win and fulfil their pledge to reopen and extend the direct grant schools, is that for the good of education?
There is not a child in this country who will benefit from the yo-yo system of being in a direct grant school one year, the maintained sector the next and back in a direct grant school the year after. We need a steady and gradual progress to non-selective systems of secondary education. We want a frank recognition of the comprehensive ideal but also the realisation that the designation of a school as comprehensive does not instantly remove all problems.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: It is always difficult to follow the exotic histrionics of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). Some time ago I did a TV broadcast with the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson). I am glad to see that in the process he was converted to some of the beliefs about comprehensive education which many of us hold.
The two debates we have had today—this one very brief, the previous one rather longer—have been about the same thing, about Conservatives defending, as they ever will, privileges and favours for themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] The hon. Member will have to learn what comprehensive education means. It is true that they want special social services, special beds, special everything for themselves. They want special education bought for their children at the expense of other children, in the same way as, in the hospital service, they want the best for themselves at the expense of

the sick in general. These are the realities, and no amount of talk about "a good social spread" can change them.
As I have said before in this Chamber, when the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Education she visited Sheffield when there were 250 State schools and one direct grant girls' high school in the city. I will give the House three guesses, with no prizes, which school she choose to deliver an edict on education worthy of the Conservative Party.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said that Manchester Grammar School is a splendid example of a good social spread. In giving us the figures, he said that the percentage of the children of industrial workers in the school was 8 per cent. If this is the hon. Gentleman's idea of what a good social spread in education means—when the other 92 per cent. were middle-class—I must tell him that that is something that we, as democrats, are totally against. The reality is that until recently only 20 per cent. of children were allowed to choose, through their parents, which school they would go to, and 80 per cent. to 90 per cent., as the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely said, had no choice whatsoever of where they would go. They had to go to the secondary modern school. That was the reality, and the Opposition know that.
Comprehensive education demands that no élitist school runs at the side of those schools which would then, to that extent, be decomprehensivised, and when Tory Members talk about a vendetta against direct grant and grammar schools they ought to realise that the vendetta is against the advances in education being made by comprehensive schools.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about schools of proven worth and said that they had not failed but had succeeded. Succeeded in what, and not failed in what? The reality is that they have succeeded in showing how elitist they are in excluding the majority of our children from that type of school.
As I said, the hon. Gentleman spoke about schools of proven worth. All things are of proven worth in the world, but we want better things than that. We want schools of greater proven worth for the majority of our children. Hence selection at 11-plus is on its way out.


The campaign against comprehensive education in favour of the direct grant schools is an ideological campaign for elitist education against the democratisation of education, and it will fail because the vast majority of parents throughout the country want comprehensive education and are against direct grant schools and elitist education.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member who catches my eye will remember that the Minister wishes to begin his reply to the debate at 11.15 p.m. I call the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee).

11.13 p.m.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: If you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it is proper, that the Secretary of State should have adequate time to reply to the debate, I can only for a few moments put my argument succinctly and shortly. I do so as a signatory to the Prayer and as one who speaks, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, from what at times is a significantly different emphasis in education matters in my party.
I am as firmly opposed as any other signatory to the Prayer to these regulations, and I am as keen as anyone to retain not every direct grant school—for that, I believe, is not a tenable proposition—but the direct grant system which is a bridge between the independent and the State systems.
In the few moments that I have I give two additional reasons that have not been mentioned. The first is learning or scholarship. I reject totally the concept, which I hear too often, that learning and scholarship are not possible and are not to be found in comprehensive schools. But I know that many of my friends who teach in comprehensive schools accept that in the early days of these schools it is probably true that an undue proportion of time, and understandably so, has been given to the less able child.
If that be right, and I find it widely accepted inside comprehensive schools, we are dealing with schools which, by common consent, are jewels of learning and scholarship, and surely it cannot be right at this moment in our education history to do away with them and par-

ticularly to cease to make available from them the services that they provide for many children who go there without payment.
Secondly, if someone was really concerned about educational issues as opposed to political dogma, he would have sought a compromise with the direct grant system. It is perfectly possible for there to be some understanding on, for example, the age of entry, the sharing of sixth form facilities, the giving of priority to young people in certain catchment areas, the provision of places on an incomes scale and the widening of the range of the intelligence quotient. All these would have been possible for someone who was driven not by political dogma but by concern and care about our education system.
As a result we have one of the greatest paradoxes in modern history—a total change of thought by Labour Members. Those who have been most critical of what are generally called the public schools are now engaged in an operation to drive into the public school sector many of the finest schools in the country, and those who are their forebears in political thought must tonight be looking on in wonder and astonishment.

11.16 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) brings to education debates a great knowledge and sincerity. I assure him that it is with no misgivings that I am unable to agree with the propositions that he has put forward tonight.
This debate is about regulations which will give effect to the plain and quite unmistakable commitment that we made in our October 1974 manifesto, that we would bring to an end the system of direct grant grammar schools. [Interruption.] Opposition Members should be tolerant; in an education debate tolerance is something that we should expect. I shall give shortly the reasons for putting our proposals forward. It could not be argued that we have put our proposals forward without giving the public an opportunity of discussing it at a General Election.
For a long time we have consistently held the view that the system of selection


at the age of 11 is iniquitous and monstrous on any grounds. One cannot be sure when children reach the age of 11 that one is picking all the winners. Under the old system, of which the direct grant schools are part, we condemn at the age of 11, or sometimes 12, about 85 per cent. of children to secondary modern schools. This means that for the majority of such children any chance they might have had of professional or higher education depends largely upon the decision taken at the age of 11.
There is substantial support in the electorate and among educationists for the abolition of the 11-plus. If we devise and develop a system of non-selective secondary schools, it is simply not possible in that system sensibly to provide for the direct grant schools. They are a particular form of grammar school, the only difference being one of funding. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) understands what they are. I took careful note of what he said. He said that we should retain them to provide variety within the maintained system. That is exactly what we are seeking to do by these regulations. We are seeking to bring these schools into the maintained system. They are independent schools in every respect, except that some children are allocated free places provided by local authorities. But for the most part the parents who send their children to these 170 schools are sending them there to get the equivalent of an independent school education at much less than the actual cost, the difference being paid for by the local and the national taxpayers.
The fact is that £42 million is provided in fees at these schools, of which £23 million comes from the local education authorities, £5 million from my Department by way of fee-remission grants and £14 million from the parents. The cost of maintaining this system is twice as much to the taxpayer as it is to the parent. Over and above that, a further £10·3 million comes from capitation fees, so out of the total income of £52 million, some £38 million is provided by the local and national taxpayer.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mulley: No. Time is short, and I have been asked many questions.
The geographical spread of these schools is very uneven. As the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said, there are only three in Wales. There are whole counties in England with no direct grant grammar schools. It is only very recently that the Conservative Party has found such enthusiasm for them. I would suggest that this is very typical. There is hardly one Opposition Member who does not, when he makes a speech outside the House, talk about the necessity of cutting public expenditure to the bone, but inside the House on every major education issue Opposition Members say they want us to spend more.

Dr. Hampson: Dr. Hampson rose—

Mr. Mulley: I cannot give way.

Dr. Hampson: Dr. Hampson rose—

Mr. Mulley: I shall not give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an education debate.

Mr. Mulley: I want to try to reply as fully as possible to the debate, and time is very short. If the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) wants to put one question, I shall give way, but I shall not be talked out.

Dr. Hampson: What will it cost the Treasury to find about 70,000 or 80,000 places which will be the shortfall in the State system caused by these schools going independent, and particularly sixth form places, which are so few in many of the areas in which these schools are situated?

Mr. Mulley: I was about to give these figures. The cost factor is brought out. At one end of the range of possibilities, the worst thing that can happen may involve a cost of up to £12 million, but, alternatively, it may well be possible to make a saving of £30 million. We cannot give exact figures because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the schools have until the end of the year before they make their decision—whether to come into the maintained sector or to go independent. Most of them have not told us yet. Until we know that, we cannot give an exact figure or even an estimate of the cost. We might save £30 million. It might cost £12 million extra if they were all to come into the maintained sector.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Chelmsford about the interests of the pupils in the schools. We intend to continue the capitation grants in respect of children presently in direct grant schools until they complete their secondary education. In the case of those schools which decide to come into the maintained sector we have not recommended broader organisational changes because we do not yet know which schools will be coming in, and the detailed arrangements will have to be worked out with local authorities.
As to the actual amount of fees, the fees may rise if the schools go independent. If the schools come into the public sector there will be no fees. If the fees rise because the schools wish to go independent, the poorer parents will continue to get the benefit of the remission of fees scheme. But, clearly, if they opt to go independent there is no obligation on our part to keep raising the remission levels in the years to come for parents who are able to pay the higher fees. We have given the assurance that the jobs and status of teachers coming into the public sector will be safeguarded. Where this is not possible in certain cases, the question of compensation will be gone into with the teachers and schools concerned.
As regards Section 81 of the 1944 Act and Section 6 of the 1953 Act, at present local authorities have the right to send children to direct grant schools if they go independent, but this is a matter about which I am consulting the local authorities and at the end of the consultations I hope to make a statement. The hon. Gentleman asked whether in the interim period local authorities can continue to send children to direct grant schools, and the answer is that they can.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for answering my questions so concisely. Will he now say whether he intends to increase the capitation fees so that the facilities at these schools for the pupils already there can be maintained?

Mr. Mulley: I have no immediate plans to deal with the capitation fees. I said that if the fees rise because the schools go independent, parents who cannot afford them under the existing

arrangements will get the benefit of the remission of fees scheme, but I am not intending to increase the levels of grant at this time.
I want the House to get this matter into some sense of proportion. I warn the hon. Gentleman that his language at times is far from moderate. For example, he spoke about there being well over 100,000 pupils in these schools. He is right: the number is over 100,000; it is 104,000. But this figure must be set against the total number of 10 million in maintained schools.
The hon. Gentleman also gave figures—for the Manchester Grammar School. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), in whose constituency the school is located, tells me that in his constituency some 55 per cent. of the population come within the categories of skilled and unskilled labour, only 8 per cent. of which is represented in that school. It is nonsense, therefore, to suggest that the direct grant schools operate for the benefit of working-class children. One has only to visit such schools to realise just what nonsense this is.
In many areas the direct grant schools make it difficult, if not impossible, to develop a proper system of non-selective secondary education. They provide for many parents who choose to go outside the public sector a subsidised system of independent academic education for their children at a lower cost than that which must be paid by parents who do not happen to have direct grant schools in their areas and who choose to send their children to independent schools.
I have said before, and I say again, that many of these schools played a prominent and distinguished part in the development of our education system when it was organised on the basis of selection for secondary education. However, the system is gradually changing; in the local education authority of the hon. Member for Chelmsford himself, for example, before the recent boundary changes 88 per cent. of the children of secondary school age were in compresensive schools.
The hon. Gentleman said that there will be no local authority boarding provision when our proposals are implemented. There are 9,000 boarders in the direct grant grammar schools. But many


local authorities make boarding provision. The Inner London Education Authority, for example, has two boarding schools—Woolverstone Hall and Crown Woods School. There is one in Norfolk. There is one in the hon. Gentleman's county. The hon. Gentleman takes such an interest in the public sector of education that he does not even realise that his

own authority maintains a boarding school at Fyfield.

I ask the House to reject the Prayer and to support the decision to abolish the direct grant grammar schools.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 292.

Division No. 366.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fox, Marcus
Luce, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Alison, Michael
Fry, Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Macfarlane, Neil


Arnold, Tom
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacGregor, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Baker, Kenneth
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Banks, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David


Bell, Ronald
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mates, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Goodlad, Alastair
Maude, Angus


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gorst, John
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Biffen, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mawby, Ray


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mayhew, Patrick


Body, Richard
Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hall, Sir John
Moate, Roger


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus


Brittan, Leon
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hampson, Dr Keith
More. Jasper (Ludlow)


Brotherton. Michael
Hannam, John
Morgan, Geraint


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Buck, Antony
Havers, Sir Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Budgen, Nick
Hawkins, Paul
Mudd, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey


Burden, F. A.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Nelson, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Heseltine, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Hicks, Robert
Newton, Tony


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John


Channon, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Churchill, W. S.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Osborn, John


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Cockcroft, John
Hunt, John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hurd, Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian


Cordle, John H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Patrick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner


Corrie, John
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rathbone, Tim


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Drayson, Burnaby
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Durant, Tony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rifkind, Malcolm


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Elliott, Sir William
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Eyre, Reginald
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lane, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fell, Anthony
Latham, Michael (Mellon)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Tim


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)




Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Stokes, John
Wakeham, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Shepherd, Colin
Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon p. (Worcester)


Shersby, Michael
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wall, Patrick


Sims, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Walters, Dennis


Sinclair, Sir George
Tebbit, Norman
Wells, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Thomas, Rt. Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Townsend, Cyril D.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Trotter, Neville
Younger, Hon George


Sproat, Iain
Tugendhat, Christopher



Stainton, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stanbrook, Ivor
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Mr. Cecil Parkinson and


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Viggers, Peter
Mr. Adam Butler.


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Anderson, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
John, Brynmor


Archer, Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Ashley, Jack
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkinson, Norman
Edge, Geoff
Judd, Frank


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kaufman, Gerald


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Kelley, Richard


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
English, Michael
Kerr, Russell


Bates, Alf
Ennals, David
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bean, R. E.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lambie, David


Beith, A. J.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lamborn, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, John (Newton)
Lamond, James


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew
Leadbitter, Ted


Bishop, E. S.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Boardman, H.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Booth, Albert
Flannery, Martin
Lipton, Marcus


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Litterick, Tom


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Loyden, Eddie


Bradley, Tom
Ford, Ben
Luard, Evan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
McCartney, Hugh


Buchanan, Richard
Freud, Clement
McElhone, Frank


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
George, Bruce
Mackenzie, Gregor


Campbell, Ian
Gilbert, Dr John
Mackintosh, John P.


Canavan, Dennis
Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert


Cant, R. B.
Gould, Bryan
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Graham, Ted
Madden, Max


Cartwright, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Magee, Bryan


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Grant, John (Islington C)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Clemitson, Ivor
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mahon, Simon


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marks, Kenneth


Coleman, Donald
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marquand, David


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Concannon, J. D.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Heffer, Eric S.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbett, Robin
Hooley, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Horam, John
Mikardo, Ian


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Millan, Bruce


Cronin, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Cryer, Bob
Huckfield, Les
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, ltchen)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Molloy, William


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Moonman, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Deakins, Eric
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Newens, Stanley


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Janner, Greville
Noble, Mike


Delargy, Hugh
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ogden, Eric


Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Halloran, Michael




O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Urwin, T. W.


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ovenden, John
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Owen, Dr David
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Padley, Walter
Sillars, James
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Palmer, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Michael


Pardoe, John
Small, William
Watkins, David


Park, George
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Watkinson, John


Parker, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Weetch, Ken


Parry, Robert
Snape, Peter
Weitzman, David


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Spearing, Nigel
Wellbeloved, James


Pendry, Tom
Spriggs, Leslie
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Penhaligon, David
Stallard, A. W.
White, James (Pollok)


Phipps, Dr Colin
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Whitehead, Phillip


Prescott, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Whitlock, William


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Stoddart, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Price, William (Rugby)
Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Radice, Giles
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Roderick, Caerwyn
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Woodall, Alec


Rooker, J. W.
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Woof, Robert


Roper, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rose, Paul B.
Tierney, Sydney
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tinn, James



Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tomlinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Rowlands, Ted
Tomney, Frank
Mr. J. D. Dormand and


Sandelson, Neville
Torney, Tom
Mr. James Hamilton.


Sedgemore, Brian
Tuck, Raphael

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — HARE COURSING BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate [24th October] on Consideration of the Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Clause 1

HARE COURSING MATCHES TO BE ILLEGAL

Which amendment was No. 4: in page 1, line 5, to leave out 'or assists at'.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the start of the debate, can we be assured that we shall have the benefit of the advice of the Attorney-General? You may recall that on Friday the House found itself in considerable difficulty on this somewhat legalistic amendment and did not have the advantage of the advice of the Attorney-General. Can we be certain that he will be with us during the course of the whole debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) is fully aware that it is not for the Chair to direct the attendance of any hon. Member or member of the Government.

Mr. John Wells: I want to assure myself fairly briefly on only two points. The first concerns the words of the Under-Secretary of State in her winding-up speech on Friday when she referred to her own Second Reading speech and said:
…that will not interfere with the right of a farmer to set his dog or dogs after a hare to catch and kill it for control purposes. Nor will it create a criminal offence if two people are taking a country walk with their dogs and the dogs put up and pursue a hare."—[Official Report, 24th October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 983.]
The hon. Lady made that point on both Friday and Second Reading, and we have her worthy and honourable assurance that this is so. However, she and the House will be aware that the words of a Minister in Committee or in this House carry no weight whatever in law.
I must remind the hon. Lady that earlier on Friday she said that the words "or assists at" would enable the Government or an authority to catch some spectators. It was her specific wish to keep these words in the Bill, despite her intention in Committee. The fact is that the hon. Lady has changed her mind and has now retained the words. In fact, she has made the point that this is to catch some spectators.
11.45 p.m.
Can the Minister assure me that if a couple of people—it might be the hon. Lady and a friend—are out walking their dogs and the dogs push off after a hare and the friend, being a betting man, says "I will lay you £10 to £1 that my dog"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am having difficulty in hearing what he is saying.

Mr. Wells: With respect, I am addressing my remarks to the Minister's phraseology in the concluding part of her winding-up speech in this debate on Friday.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was making an appeal for silence in the House. I was not criticising his contribution.

Mr. Wells: Fortunately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am getting a little deaf and was unable to hear above the noise coming from the other side of the House. My sympathy goes to you.
The point is simple. Will the hon. Lady point out how her assurance has some force of law and is not just the cosy assurance of a nice young woman?
If the Bill becomes an Act, I shall not view those who break it as desperate criminals. The Minister said that the words "or assists at" were to deal with spectators. A distinguished person might be buying goods alongside a bank which was being robbed and somebody might see this happen. Would an innocent bystander at a bank robbery be assisting in it if, for example, he failed to take the number of a car involved in the robbery?
What do the words "or assists at" really mean? This woolliness of language worries me. I hope that the Minister will


think again about it. In Committee she indicated that she was willing to have the words deleted. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) took the opposite view from me and perhaps persuaded the hon. Lady to change her mind. I am very concerned about this matter. I hope that she can give me the assurance for which I have asked.
Finally, I should like to go back to the hon. Lady's words,
will not interfere with the right of a farmer to set his dog or dogs after a hare to catch and kill it".—[Official Report, 24th October, 1975; Vol. 898, c. 983.]
Nowhere does the Bill say that. There is no safeguard.
I know that the Bill has been foisted on the Government by a lot of town-dwelling Members who do not understand the reality of the countryside. I also recognise that many of them are bringing forward the Bill with the most honourable and worthy motives in their own eyes because they do not understand what goes on.
The hon. Lady, as a Minister in the Home Office, is responsible for country people as well as for town people. I hope that she will look at the Bill through rural eyes and try to understand the problems of many of my constituents and other people to whom hares are an increasing nuisance. In my part of the countryside there are large areas of Forestry Commission land and large areas of orchard land, and hares are a great pest. They are controlled by conventional means, but in the course of controlling them it is almost inevitable that they are chased by two or more dogs. I should like the Minister's categoric assurance that those people are safeguarded in the Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Those who stayed away on Friday evening and refused to allow the closure on the amendment did the House a great service. It has given us the weekend to ponder on the Minister's words and to consider whether we should include "or assists at". After 48 hours of thought I have realised that those words represent one of the most fundamental new matters in law which have been advanced by the Government in the Bill and that they require the earnest and prolonged attention of the House.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), in a remarkable speech, discussed the two meanings of "assist". It means either that a person helps, aids and abets or that he is just present. What he called the gallicised meaning of the word—the French meaning, albeit a genteelism—is that a person is present on the occasion. The House could rightly ask for clarification on which meaning should be attached to "assist".
I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for her kindness in telling us what she thinks "assist" means. I hope that the whole House will share my deep mistrust, apprehension and foreboding about what she said on Friday. She said:
It is likely to make it easier to prosecute successfully some spectators whose presence might be sufficiently ambiguous in character to make it difficult to prosecute them as aiders and abetters.
Is there to be introduced into our criminal law the principle that spectators will be prosecuted for being spectators although they cannot be prosecuted as aiders and abetters?

Sir David Renton: Does not my hon. Friend find, as I do, that that comes as near to a suggestion of guilt by mere association as has ever fallen from the lips of a Home Office Minister?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that it is disgraceful. It is not a small debating matter. The Minister went on to say:
As I indicated in Committee, these words slightly enlarge the offence created by the Bill so as to make it possible to catch some spectators more easily…However, it can be argued in favour of the inclusion of these words, that anyone who stands around at an unlawful hare coursing and subsequently finds himself prosecuted has only himself to blame."—[Official Report, 24th October 1975: Vol. 898, c. 963.]
Is she saying that a person who stands around when a bank is being robbed or murder is being committed has only himself to blame if he is prosecuted?
What is this new principle that the Government are producing? It seems incredible. Let us take some recent examples of legislation and apply the new principle that those who stand around as spectators will be as culpable as those committing the offence. Let us remember


the violent picketing that took place at the Saltley coke works. Is it suggested that all those who assisted were equally guilty of the offence of violent picketing? Many thousands were present. That is the sort of concept which the Labour Party finds revolting, yet in its legislation it would provide a Tory Government with the argument that we should have included the innocent spectators at Saltley as being guilty under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.
Let us consider Clay Cross. Is it to be argued that apart from those who defined the Housing Finance Act and who are guilty of a criminal offence, equally guilty would have been anyone who assisted in the defiance of the Act? Supposing that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and some of his hon. Friends had been aiding and abetting the councillors at Clay Cross to resist the Act. Would they have been prosecuted as being equally guilty? What about the Clerk, the typists and the men who sweep out the council offices? The mind boggles at the number of people who could be surcharged.

Mr. Thomas Swain: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Clerk of the Clay Cross Urban District Council took the chair at all the protest meetings that were held in the Clay Cross area?

Mr. Ridley: Yes. Clearly, he attended at the commission of the offence in that instance. Let us consider some of the recent sit-ins, such as the scenes at a Scottish newspaper office or at the Meriden motor cycle factory—any of the sit-ins which have been so much a feature of our industrial life in the past. According to the principle erected by the hon. Lady, anyone who assists in a sit-in will be as guilty as those who trepass or commit a criminal offence in their actions towards the property of others. Is that what is intended?
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Energy would be guilty on many counts of assisting sit-ins. Most members of the Government Front Bench have assisted at a sit-in by passing money through the House to bail out and to encourage the participants. That is much

more culpable than being an innocent bystander at a hare coursing meeting.
The severity of the punishment and the width and scope of the treatment which is to be meted out to the innocent spectator at a hare coursing meeting compares ill with the much more contentious actions of Ministers in relation to the illegal acts which have been carried out by others.
Let us consider the question of the £6 a week limit. If someone puts up prices and others assist at the putting up of the prices by paying more than £6 a week, should they not also be made guilty of the offence? The concept that someone who assists at the commission of a criminal offence should be included within the scope of the offence is totally and utterly obnoxious, especially when it has been made clear that assistance means spectating and not necessarily aiding and abetting.
12 midnight.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has not unwittingly fallen into error in talking of the "£6 offence"? Having been present with the rest of us at another all-night sitting of the House when that proposition was strenuously resisted when a certain Bill, which is not at the moment before us, purported to create an offence, surely he is not, under cover of the Hare Coursing Bill, going to lend colour to an all-too-prevalent misunderstanding on the part of the public.

Mr. Ridley: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the measure of which he spoke is no longer a Bill but an Act. Furthermore, he may have misheard me because the sound of the rapt attention of the House sometimes drowns my words. I said that if somebody defies an order and puts up prices in defiance of an order controlling those prices because he has paid more than £6 a week, and it is stopped by the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, an offence may be committed by anybody who aids or assists in the putting up of prices in contravention of the order and would come into the same category as somebody who assisted in hare coursing. But that is not the case. It is only the person who puts up the prices, and not the person who assists him, who is guilty of an offence. The


scope of the category of assisters is much more severe than in the counter-inflation policy which, we are told, is the cornerstone and top priority of the Government's programme.
I wish to refer to another matter—the Crossman diaries. We did not have an injunction to stop those diaries being published. Those who wish to see more open government and free speech were delighted. But suppose matters had gone the other way and there had been an injunction; anybody who had assisted in the publication presumably would have been included in the new definition of a committer of a criminal offence—such as the printers who set the type, the makers of the newspaper, and others who deal with all the many aspects of the printing of a newspaper. It would have applied to all those who assisted in the printing of the diaries, if that had been carried out in defiance of the Judge's ruling. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think we can have a private race going on on the Opposition benches.

Mr. Ridley: Then I shall not respond, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was saying that we have this new offence of assisting in committing a criminal offence. [Interruption.] Did you say "Order", Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I did not. If I did, there must be a ventriloquist in the House. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to be as brief as he possibly can.

Mr. Ridley: I consider that I have truncated my remarks to a considerable degree already. I intend to be as brief as possible. When a new principle is hoisted upon us—namely, that assisting is in the same category as the commission of an offence—it requires some analysis and comparison. The idea of spectators being charged at a coursing meeting, which is what the Minister stressed on three separate occasions on Friday, is clearly wrong. I am not now wishing to debate the principle of the Bill. I want the hon. Lady to go back to her position in Committee, when I think she had some doubts about it.
If it is to be said that those who are spectators at an illegal offence can be prosecuted, there really is no end to the

abuse which can take place. Since the hon. Lady does not feel strongly about it, she would be wise to concede this amendment and leave these words out. The mere fact that spectators are to be guilty of criminal offences must seem wrong in her eyes. I should have thought she would feel that herself straight away.
The Bill is contentious enough. There is little or no support for it in the country districts. Law does not go down well unless the majority of the people believe in it, and the majority of country people do not think this law is right, fair or necessary. If, on top of that, insult is to be added to injury, in that an innocent spectator may be picked up, charged and fined up to £200 or even £400, I believe that this House is being asked to pass really bad law.

Mr. Wells: I believe that it is the innocent spectators who are picked up more than once who will be precisely those who are fined the maximum.

Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I think that the House would, despite the contentious nature of the whole of this Bill, be wise to take this point seriously and to accept the amendment. The merit of having prolonged the debate since Friday is that it has shown that there is something really wrong in the concept that the hon. Lady is putting forward.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): With the leave of the House, I will speak for a third time on this amendment and try—I hope for the last time—to explain to hon. Members opposite the purpose behind the Bill, which is constantly raised in question.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells), to which I referred both in the Second Reading and last Friday, if he will read the Bill carefully he will see that it deals with people who knowingly permit
the coursing of a hare by two or more clogs in a competition as to their ability to course hares".
When I explained the position of a farmer in a field with his dogs, or two people taking a country walk with their dogs, I was making it clear that the Bill would deal with competitive, organised hare coursing as we know it, and this is quite clearly stated in the Bill.
The second point which is continually raised is that I am introducing a new element into the criminal law and a totally new principle. Here again, I have repeated at least twice—possible more than twice—during the proceedings on the Bill that the Protection of Animals Act 1911 made it an offence to
cause, procure or assist at the fighting or baiting of any animal".
That is the precedent—a very old one—for the word "assist". The interpretation of that provision has never given rise to any difficulty on the part of the police or the courts.
With regard to the position of spectators, a spectator—to take an example from legislation already in existence concerning illegal prizefighting—has been held to be guilty of aiding and abetting the offence committed by those who took part in the fight if he by his presence encouraged the commission of their offence.
The passer-by, on the other hand, who, seeing a crowd gathered, joins in to see what is happening, does not by that action aid and abet the offence of the prizefighters. But, to return to hare coursing, once a person knows that coursing is taking place, it seems right that he should be guilty of an offence if he remains to aid and abet the coursing. In practice, the only spectators likely to be in this situation are those who have paid for admission or who are associated with the people promoting the meeting. All these people can fairly be described as assisting at the coursing of the hare.
For this reason, I urge the House to reject the amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question he now put, put and agreed to.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT

Mr. John Farr: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
We come now to what is probably one of the most important and significant amendments proposed to the Bill. Unfortunately, I did not serve on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. But, looking through the Official Report of its proceedings, I find it strange that there was at no time any discussion about whether the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland. It is with that in mind that I move this amendment.
I have an open mind about whether the so-called benefits of the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland, but I think that it is quite improper for this House to pass legislation of this nature without considering the very special rôle of the whole of Ireland in coursing. I tabled this amendment because I felt that it would provide an opportunity for a short debate on some aspects of coursing as they apply to Northern Ireland and whether it would be right not to include Northern Ireland in the benefits of this Bill.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I am sure that my hon. Friend will admit that nothing that we do in this House can have any effect on the laws of Southern Ireland. We cannot pass legislation to control hare coursing in Eire. Then again, if this is a matter of such great importance to Northern Ireland, it is extraordinary that the only hon. Member present representing a Northern Ireland constituency is the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), whom we are all glad to see.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful for that intervention. However, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) to look again at the Notice Paper, where he will see that this amendment proposes to leave out subsection (2), which refers to Northern Ireland alone. There is no question of including the whole of Ireland in the amendment.
I thought that it would be helpful, therefore, to those of us interested in the passage of the Bill to look at some of the legislation passed through this House in recent years to see what has been the practice in relation to Northern Ireland since we took over responsibility for the day-to-day running of the Province and abolished the Stormont Government.
12.15 a.m.
I find that there are quite a number of Acts of Parliament passed in recent


years in which reference is made to Northern Ireland where the full extent of the legislation applies to the Province. However, most of the Acts of Parliament passed in the last two or three years do not apply to Northern Ireland. I have in mind, for example, the Lotteries Act. That is an eight-section Act which went through this House this year. That does not apply to Northern Ireland. The Child Benefit Act 1975 does not apply to Northern Ireland, whereas the Social Security Benefits Act 1975, a beneficial Act, does, in Section 66, Section 67(4), Section 89 and Schedule 17. The Coal Industry Act does not apply, nor does the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. Strangely, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act does not apply. But the Criminal Jurisdiction Act, a much more significant Act, which for the first time created extraterritorial offences, does. The Referendum Act and the Oil Taxation Act, both of 1975, apply to Northern Ireland, but two Private Members' Acts—the Guard Dogs Act and the Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Protection Act—do not.
Several significant Acts passed in 1974 apply, including the Control of Pollution Act. The Independent Broadcasting (No. 2) Act, which, like the Bill, had only two clauses, applies to Northern Ireland. The Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act did not specify whether it applied or not. The year 1974 was a half-and-half year—half good government and half bad.
In 1973, we saw going on the statute book the sort of legislation which the House respects, when the last Conservative administration was in office. Four significant Acts come to mind. Obviously, the Ulster Defence Regiment Act applies to Northern Ireland; equally obviously, the Maplin Development Act and the London Cabs Act did not. But, surprisingly again, the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act does not. The Dentists (Amendment) Act was silent on whether it did or not.
I will not trouble the House with long quotations from these Acts, but one can find a pattern in the application of what I might call post-Stormont legislation by the House so far as it applies to Northern Ireland. By and large, four out of five Acts that we have passed have had no application to Northern Ireland and mention has been made therein to that effect.
This Bill, which is being pushed forward so misguidedly by the Government, makes it clear that it does not refer to Northern Ireland, and I think that this is a grave mistake. It may be that the hon. Lady, despite what she listened to with such patience and grace in Standing Committee, is not fully aware of the significant part that Northern Ireland has played in British coursing over many years.
I know that in Committee mention was made of that famous dog Master McGrath, and I shall refer to that at some length in a moment. What I should like to do, and I am sure this will interest the House, is to give hon. Members some idea of the attitude of people in Northern and Southern Ireland towards coursing. I think that one can get a good idea of this by reading an extract or two from a recently published book by Alan Fitzpatrick called "Ireland by the Irish".
I shall not read the whole of the extract, which extends to a couple of pages, but it makes it clear that people on both sides of the border in Ireland—and let us remember that in terms of Irish history this border is of recent and passing significance because the country has been united for most of the time—were as united then as they are today in their love for the sport of coursing.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the common interest in hare coursing between the North and the South is such as to unite the country? If it is, why has it not done so already?

Mr. Farr: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the facts will be clearer to him if he waits for another 20 minutes, by which time I shall have finished the introduction to my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is alarming the Chair. I understood that he would make a brief reference to the pedigree of a dog and that would be the end of it, but he has evidently changed his mind.

Mr. Farr: I am pleased to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are listening so carefully to what I am saying. I was proposing to read one or two brief extracts from this important and significant work by Mr. Alan Fitzpatrick called


"Ireland by the Irish". In the section relating to greyhounds it says that
we Irish are only slightly less proud of our greyhounds than we are of our bloodstock,
and it goes on to refer to the fact that
The Waterloo Cup, the blue riband of the coursing fields, has always held a particular attraction for Irish contenders ever since the immortal black, Lord Lurgan's Dungarvan-bred Master McGrath, won the trophy three times in four seasons nearly 100 years ago.
The extract, which I shall not read in full, goes on to deal with the wonderful performances by Master McGrath, this Irish-bred dog, and then refers to another famous greyhound bred in Northern Ireland, Mick the Miller, which won 19 races in succession and whose body stands in the Natural History Museum in London. Mick won the English Derby in two successive years and nearly won a third, as well as taking the Cesarewitch, the St. Leger, the Spring Cup and the Welsh Derby. He won more than £9,000 in prize money and even starred in a film.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am beginning to wonder if this is not filibustering. The hon. Member is a Member of the British House of Commons and not a racing tipster.

Mr. Farr: I respect what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Master McGrath was a famous dog. He came over from Northern Ireland, having been bred there, and eventually returned to Northern Ireland, where he died. He was successful because the sport in Northern Ireland is so widely and generally supported that the standard of coursing there is particularly high; hence, the calibre of the dogs that are bred there is extremely high.
I raised this amendment because I did not think it right or proper that the House should accept this subsection without having an opportunity to discuss it. I am convinced that some Labour MPs who have Irish constituencies will wish to comment on whether it is applicable to Northern Ireland, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) may wish to speak. It is a matter of great significance.
Even in these difficult times when Ireland is divided by a border, we find that sport is more of a unifying pastime than a divisive one. In rugby football,

association football, cricket and many other sports Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland are united. Although it is a good idea to have a discussion on this amendment, there may be another side to it. I am sure that some Labour and possibly Conservative Members will wish to comment on this amendment later. There is no doubt that as a nation the Irish have a deep love of coursing. No Government, of whatever political complexion, of Southern Ireland would be so stupid as to introduce a Bill such as this because they would not last five minutes. They have more sense. It would not be right for the House to accept the Bill as it stands without discussion. I hope that further discussion will be fruitful and that both sides will learn a lot from it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Powell.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you propose the Question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am very sorry. The Question is, That the amendment be made.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not like to be called unless he is called absolutely legitimately, with everything done in the proper order. I thank him for calling my attention to this.

Mr. Powell: An important matter of both principle and constitution has been raised by this amendment. The House is not wasting time by considering it carefully.
The principle enunciated by the Government repeatedly, and in particular in a recent White Paper which they submitted to the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention, is that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. From that it should follow that, unless there are specific reasons to the contrary or unless there are reasons of clear local difference, that which is thought proper to be the law of the land in Great Britain should also be made the law of the land in Northern Ireland.
12.30 a.m.
This view seems to me to be equally cogent whether or not we happen to approve or object to the particular legislation, for it would surely be contrary to the view of a united kingdom that we


should wish the law, so far as we agree with it, to apply to the whole of the kingdom but when we disagree with it it should be a sort of patchwork applicable in some parts but not applicable in others.
I therefore put before the House my support for this amendment, undeterred by the fact that I detest the Bill and regard it as misconceived and shall vote against it on Third Reading as I did on Second Reading. Nevertheless, if this is going to be part of the law of the land, I believe it ought to be part of the law of the United Kingdom and not only of Great Britain.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) illustrated to the House that there has, in the last three years since this House has been the sole legislature for Northern Ireland, been great variation of practice. He drew attention to some real anomalies in the course of the examples which he gave. Certainly there are matters on which there exists today a body of law built up over the years by the legislation of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Where such a body of legislation exists it is clearly impracticable for this House simply to pass an Act applying to the United Kingdom as a whole, since the application clause to apply it to Northern Ireland would require to be so complicated.

Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There seems to be a sedentary debate taking place on the Government benches within the proper and general debate which we are having upon the Floor of the House. That sedentary debate is taking place in such loud tones that, although I am sitting immediately in front of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), it is becoming difficult for me to follow his very interesting argument.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Interruptions from a sedentary position or even loud conversations are unfair to anyone who is addressing the House.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that there is a certain type of legislation which it is proper should not be directly applied to Northern Ireland because it relates to subjects on which a body of separate legislation for Northern Ireland

already exists, either derived from the period before 1920 or built up by the Parliament of Northern Ireland during the 50 years of its life. In those cases it is proper that the House should use the powers available under the 1973 and 1974 Acts to engage in a sort of summary legislation, undesirable in itself but unavoidable in the present interim circumstances, in order to apply to Northern Ireland the principle of legislation which is introduced for Great Britain. But that cannot be applicable to the Bill which we are considering. There is no Northern Ireland law which would be differently affected by this Bill from the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, prima facie we ought not to be contemplating a Great Britain Bill but ought to be debating whether this a change in the law proper to be made for the United Kingdom as a whole.
It may be that by a sort of collusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, between your immediate predecessor in the Chair and myself we anticipated the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary rising to accept the amendment, for she has provided the House at an earlier stage of the proceedings on Report with the most cogent reason why, if the Bill is right at all, it should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. Last Friday she said:
The justification for the Bill is that hare coursing is a barbaric sport wherever and whenever it occurs.
In other words, the words "wherever it occurs" imply that in any part of the United Kingdom it will be regarded as equally objectionable by those who are supporters of the Bill.
The hon. Lady continued:
It is the Government's view that hare coursing is cruel per se and should be made illegal irrespective of whether in particular areas some people take a different view.
Once again, even if a different view were to be put forward on the part of the people of Northern Ireland, the hon. Lady would still be committed to the view that this should be a United Kingdom Bill.
The hon. Lady said finally:
It would be indefensible to have a situation in which, because of local feeling, hare coursing was permitted to take place in some areas but not in others."—[Official Report, 24th October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 918.]


In short, the hon. Lady, by the whole purport of her argument, has committed herself to support of the amendment which is before the House and to the proposition that, if justified at all, this should be a United Kingdom Bill.
Those of us who represent Northern Ireland in the House, and particularly those who are not entirely in sympathy with some expressions which fell from the hon. Member for Harborough, regard Northern Ireland not only as being at present what it undeniably is—an integral part of the United Kingdom—but as destined so to remain for the benefit of all and not merely for the benefit of a section of its inhabitants, attach particular importance to legislation covering Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom in any case where there is no special reason to the contrary.
The debate is taking place without the assistance, if that is what it be, of the Scottish National Party and, indeed, the Welsh nationalists. Anyone who took the view that the destiny of Wales or of Scotland lay as part of the United Kingdom would object strongly to legislation applying to England only, except in cases where there was a separate body of Scottish law. In those cases, Scottish law being specifically preserved by the Act of Union, it has been necessary, though procedurally very inconvenient and laborious, that this House should legislate separately for the different parts of the Kingdom.
I repeat that this is not a case of that kind. Therefore, leaving aside the arguments for or against the purport of the Bill, I insist upon the proposition that, as the reasons for or against must be equally valid in all parts of the United Kingdom, and as Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland should not be excluded from the benefit or the curse of the Bill by the subsection which the hon. Member for Harborough proposes to leave out.
Before I resume my seat I repeat, though I shall probably have a later opportunity of making this clear, that I regard the Bill as wholly misconceived and I believe that it should not find place on the statute book of the United Kingdom. But that, as I say, is immaterial to the question whether legislation which we pass in this House should be wherever

possible United Kingdom legislation. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: This is not the time to engage in grandiose constitutional arguments for or against the total integration of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has done.
I have supported this Bill on its passage through the House, and I shall continue to support it, because I despise and detest the barbaric practice of hare coursing. Many thousands of people in Northern Ireland do the same. Northern Ireland is not known for its progressive attitudes in many respects, but in the last Stormont Parliament Members representing various shades of political opinion voted for a Bill such as this to abolish hare coursing in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we have some knowledge of what the people of Northern Ireland feel about hare coursing.
That Bill went to the Senate. This Bill will undoubtedly go to the House of Lords. The people in the Senate are like the people in the House of Lords, and they refused to accept the Bill as it had come from the House of Commons at Stormont. Eventually the Bill returned to the House of Commons, and before further action could be taken Stormont was abolished, for political and other reasons, by the Conservative Government. But we had a clear indication that the majority of the elected representatives at the Stormont Parliament were in favour of the abolition of hare coursing.
I support the amendment. I do not think it is a joke. It is not funny, as the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) seemed to think, telling us about Master McGrath and the love of the Irish for greyhound racing. He was trying to make a farce of the debate. Unlike the right hon. Member for Down, South, I support the amendment; but I shall also support the Bill in all its stages. One should be consistent. I do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman can advance the argument that he wants the amendment to apply the Bill to Northern Ireland to be carried and then vote against the Bill.

Mr. Powell: Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that those who believe in the


unity of the kingdom wish legislation—wise or foolish, ill conceived or well conceived—to be passed for the kingdom as a whole and to apply until there is a change in the law or a change of policy. Surely that is implicit in being one nation.

Mr. Fitt: The Bill is concerned with eradicating the barbaric practice of hare coursing. This is not the time or place to engage in constitutional arguments as they affect Northern Ireland. I shall support the amendment in the Lobby but for sincere reasons, because I want the Bill to apply to Northern Ireland.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House did not stay to the end of the debate on Friday, but I did stay, at some inconvenience to myself and my constituents, to vote for the Bill. That is why I am here tonight, and I shall stay to the end of the debate to prove my sincerity in my belief that hare coursing is wrong and that the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland.
The Government may say that there is some constitutional reason why the Bill should not apply to Northern Ireland. I do not know what it is. I have heard it said that it would be better to leave the matter until we have a new local administration or new devolved Government in Northern Ireland and then they can deal with it. But can anyone say with accuracy that there will be a new Parliament in Northern Ireland? Will there be a devolved Parliament. What new Government structure will be agreed or arranged? Looking at the Convention reports which will shortly be debated here, one cannot have any great confidence that in the foreseeable future we shall have a new government structure in Northern Ireland.
This legislation should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, As the Minister said, if coursing is cruel in Birmingham it is cruel in Belfast or in the rest of the world, and should be abolished. Northern Ireland Members should give a clear indication of their attitude on the application of this Bill to Northern Ireland. I do not think that they will do so. They hope that there will be a new Government in Northern Ireland and that the matter can be left to them. Perhaps that is all that the Stormont Parliament will be capable of discussing. I believe that the Bill should

apply to Northern Ireland, although I am not certain how my hon. Friends feel. I am prepared to go into the Lobby on this issue.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: As we are discussing Northern Ireland it would be appropriate for a Northern Ireland Minister to be present to answer the questions raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) argued that the measure should apply to Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend is a countryman, a farmer, who has close connections with the North and the South.
I question the wisdom of this amendment and the wisdom of the hon. Lady's Second Reading speech, when she said:
…if there is still no early prospect of a legislative assembly operating in Northern Ireland, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have it in mind to publish straightaway for public discussion proposals for an Order in Council along exactly similar lines to the Bill."—[Official Report, 13th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 911.]
We are discussing park coursing. That is not the same as the coursing which takes place in this country, in which the quarry has a fair chance. Park coursing in Northern Ireland is different. It consists of coursing a captive animal in an enclosed space. Coursing in this country is run under National Coursing Club rules and consists of coursing a wild animal in an open space. Park coursing had only a short life in this country.

Mr. Richard Body: Park coursing is illegal in this country under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, as it consists of the pursuit of an animal which has already been captured.

Mr. Mather: My hon. Friend is right. Park coursing is illegal under the 1911 legislation. The hunting of captive animals is now taboo. However, more hares survive in park coursing. With park coursing 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of hares survive, but with open coursing about 75 per cent. of hares survive. That point should be borne in mind. Moreover, I understand that the Irish Coursing Club pays a bonus of £4 for each hare which, having been coursed, is thereafter released into the wilds. Therefore, we


must consider on what critera park coursing in Northern Ireland should be ended. Is it more cruel or is it less cruel? Does it result in the death of more or fewer hares?
The hon. Lady will no doubt argue that the whole sport is abhorrent. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) quoted an extract from the right hon. Lady's speech on Second Reading to that effect. However, the criteria on which she bases her argument will be of interest to those of us who must take a view on this matter.
What is apparent from our discussions so far is the surprising ignorance of the supporters of the Bill and the weakness of their arguments concerning cruelty. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and my hon Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) last Friday well and truly exploded the arguments about cruelty. I cannot believe that Labour Members are proud of their ignorance. During the proceedings they have been made to look very ignorant, ill-informed and silly.
However, according to the authors, the Bill is supposed to be about a cruel sport, or, if one prefers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Meyer Galpern): Order. I am always reluctant to interrupt, but at present we are considering not the broad issue of the Bill, but the issue of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mather: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to keep to the issue.
I draw the attention of the House to the extraordinary fact that the Minister responsible for sport, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), confessed to me in this Chamber during the Report stage of the Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Protection Bill his support for this miserable Hare Coursing Bill, based on the belief that in Britain we coursed captive hares released from a box. He mentioned this matter just before we adjourned for the Summer Recess. Of course the Minister was confusing coursing in Northern Ireland and coursing in this country, and in many ways it is not surprising that he was doing so. However, he said:

Nevertheless, the truth of the matter is that the hares have to be captured. They have to be maintained".—[Official Report, 11th July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 958.]
He believed that that was the situation in this country, but it is totally untrue.
If the Minister responsible for sport does not understand what the Bill is about, how many Labour Members understand what it is about?
Park coursing—the coursing carried out in Northern Ireland—was introduced after the Ground Game Act 1880. It followed the disastrous harvest of 1879. It gave every occupier of land the right to kill ground game—that is, hares and rabbits. Of course, there was the famous election after that in which the so-called hares and rabbits Act played a large part. Following that, with the economics of the countryside prevailing, the hare population was decimated. Twelve years later the first conservation Act was brought into effect and that was the Hares Preservation Act 1892, which provided a closed breeding season. Between March and July it was an offence in Great Britain to kill a hare or a leveret. The hare population began to drop to such an extent that the Ground Game (Amendment) Act 1906 was introduced providing a completely closed season for the killing of hares. That was the second conservation measure in this country, and that led to the practice of park or paddock coursing as practised in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I was not sure for how long he was proposing to go on. I hope that he will not mind if at this point I say that I have carefully considered all the arguments in favour of the amendment and that, in view of the apparent difference of opinion in the House, I should like to have further discussions with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office on this matter. I assure the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that we will consider this matter very carefully before it goes to the Lords. In view of the firm undertaking which I now give to consider this matter carefully, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman feels that he need press the amendment?

Mr. Mather: I take it that the hon. Lady has said her piece on this amendment and will not wish to speak further.


I am grateful for what she said about giving the matter further consideration. That is really the point of the amendment and of the remarks that I am making on it.
We do not want to defend park coursing as practised in Northern Ireland. We are defending the coursing of wild hares in their natural state under National Coursing Club rules in this country. When the hon. Lady is carrying out her consultations, will she ascertain whether the Government of the Republic of Ireland propose to bring in similar legislation? It would be unfortunate if the two halves of Ireland were different in this respect.
Will the hon. Lady also bear in mind the political relationship between central Government in Westminster and Northern Ireland in view of the delicate situation which now exists? I believe that legislation on a domestic affair such as this—it is a national sport, whatever the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) may say about it—should be left to a devolved Assembly and Government.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Mellish: Mr. Mellish rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Queston put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Tom Pendry and Mr. Donald Coleman were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to Act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

1.2 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: The words we have just heard you utter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, suggesting that the Bill be read the Third time have been the nightmare of the members of the society of which I have the honour to be chairman [Interruption]—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. We must give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Kimball: For the past ten years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I and other members

of the National Coursing Club have dreaded your standing up, holding the Bill in your right hand and suggesting that it should be read the Third time. It will be appropriate on this occasion for me to dwell on what would happen if the House were to give the Bill a Third Reading.
I am glad to see the Home Secretary present. I think that he will agree that no reference to the Bill is contained in the Labour Party's election manifesto. The only mention of the Bill that I can find in any official Labour Party policy document is in the big policy statement of 1968, on page 14, under the main heading of "The Environment". Although the Bill was referred to in that early policy document, it is not referred to in the manifesto.
It is significant that the coursing correspondent of The Sporting Life should have been carrying on over the years a correspondence with Mr. Terry J. Pitt, who has a fairly important position in the Labour Party's research department. Prior to the February 1974 election, Mr. Pitt, on official Labour Party notepaper, wrote to the coursing correspondent of The Sporting Life stating categorically:
If elected, the Labour Party does not intend to introduce a Bill to ban coursing. We believe that we have far more urgent priorities which will take a full five years of parliamentary work at the absolute minimum.
He went on to explain that if a Private Member's Bill were introduced it was possible that some parliamentary time would be made available.
The correspondence was carried on to 4th October 1974. On that date Mr. Pitt wrote to confirm that the Labour Party's position on coursing was basically unchanged, but he added a reference to the Private Member's Bill that had been before Parliament at the time that Parliament was prorogued. The Labour Party, having said that there would be no time for a Government Bill during the five years of this Parliament, has suddenly decided to give the Bill Government time and to bring it forward as a Government Bill.

Mr. Burden: I hold no brief for the Government, but is my hon. Friend right in saying that when a research worker of the Labour Party at Transport House puts


forward a view it should become Government policy? That seems to be an extraordinary argument.

Mr. Kimball: My hon. Friend seems to keep extraordinary company on this subject. I should have thought that if the correspondent of a national sporting paper writes to the official Labour Party and asks for the Labour Party's programme the party should stand by the advice that is given. Either Mr. Hayward represents the views of the Labour Party or he does not. This is a relevant argument given the position in which we find ourselves on the whole of the Bill. It is important that the House and another place should realise that the Bill was not in the Labour Party's manifesto. During the election the Labour Party denied that it would bring forward such a Bill.
It is significant that we are having this debate on an historic coursing occasion. Today happens to be the bicentenary of the oldest coursing meeting in Britain. In 1776 none other than the grandson of Britain's first Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole, founded the club. Cheered on by the fact that on Friday the Government showed that they had no real stomach for proceeding with the Bill, a large gathering has been at Swaffham today to celebrate 200 years of coursing at the club. I can assure the House that it has had an extremely successful and enjoyable day. It had over 30 courses, and hon. Members may be interested in the conditions that prevailed. I understand that only four hares have been killed today.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): Oh!

Mr. Kimball: The hon. Gentleman may care to wonder what will happen if the Bill is enacted. What will happen to all the hares in the Swaffham area? I admit that they are kept there for the coursing club, but the hon. Gentleman must know that people will not be able to drive through that area of Norfolk and see the number of hares that are now to be seen once official coursing has been banned by the Bill.
What about unemployment? There are over 100 people directly employed in coursing. They draw their livelihood

from coursing. There are the trainers, people who work in the kennels, the slippers and many others.
The hon. Lady was courteous and charming throughout the proceedings in Committee, but she has been totally unbending on the issue of postponing the date on which the Bill comes into operation.
Those who work in coursing have had long warning of the Government's intention, but that does not mean anything. If they had taken any notice of the Government's intentions, they would have given notice years ago. This is not the first Government Bill on this subject, and it will not be the last. We have seen the failure of two Government Bills and I predict that in present circumstances, in view of the present timetable, we shall be coursing next season and the Bill will not reach the statute book.
The consequences of the Bill will be bad for people who work in coursing, for the coursing areas, and for the breed of dog. In Committee we had a long and lengthy argument about the effect of the Bill on the breeding of greyhounds and coursing-type dogs in this country. We shall probably see all our more sporting breeds brought down to the state in which we now find the cocker spaniel in this country. It is a charming dog, but it is no longer a working dog.

Mr. Wells: I should be pleased to show my hon. Friend such a cocker spaniel any weekend he cares to visit me.

Mr. Kimball: My hon. Friend may be one of those fortunate people who still have a working strain of cocker spaniel. But one has only to look at the Kennel Club Register to see that it is one of a breed that are pet dogs and no longer working dogs.
Let us look at the position of the Scottish deerhound. When the Deer Act 1963 made it illegal to use those dogs on red deer, the owners of those dogs still wanted to test them to enable them to display their qualities, and they now test them by coursing for hares. Competitive coursing for hares will be made illegal by this Bill. Therefore, owners of those dogs will not be able to test their dogs, in their normal and natural surroundings, for the purposes for which they were bred.
I believe that this occasion is a sad one. It is a warning to all countrymen and to all who enjoy country sports as we know them. Once coursing goes—and it will not go this year and will probably not go next year, but if eventually it ever does go—we shall see the same pattern applied to the other sports. It is a thoroughly familiar pattern consisting of propaganda and parliamentary legislation. It requires a Private Member's Bill on which to hang that propaganda, and a move to a Private Member's Bill for which the Government give Government time. One obtains more funds for the organisation that is campaigning and goes in for a fairly extensive advertising campaign. But despite all the money spent by the spoilsports on advertising, in their campaign against us they have been given extremely poor editorial comment. I am cynical enough to believe that editorial comment tends to follow the advertising manager's advice. However, it is significant that despite the expenditure of £50,000 on advertising, there was not one favourable leading article on the day of the Second Reading debate.
It is important that the House of Commons should not just pick on a particular sport or activity because few people happen to know about it or enjoy it. The House of Commons should support anybody who carries on a lawful occupation—and that is what the National Coursing Club has been doing. The Government have acted in a very irresponsible manner. One expects Governments not to be swayed by emotions, not to lead prejudices. Above all, one expects the Home Office, as a great Department of State, to take a really responsible view of any particular lawful activity before deciding to legislate against it.
I do not think for a moment that the Home Office has decided to legislate against coursing. There is no single instance of a letter from any member of the Home Office or the hon. Lady's staff to the National Coursing Club complaining about the conduct of meetings. There is no record of the Home Office expressing concern about coursing.
What has happened is that a deliberate political decision has been taken by certain elements in the Labour Party. Other elements in the Labour Party have decided to throw the sport of coursing as a bone to the dogs on this particular

occasion. The Home Office has been drawn into this struggle in the most shameful and undignified manner, and quite uncharacteristic of that great Department of State.
I hope that, even if the Bill gets a Third Reading, we shall still be able to continue to course for a few more years. Those of us who enjoy the sport, who realise what it is about and know a little about it, will do everything we can to ensure that this piece of legislation, and others which are ill-founded, ill-thought-out and quite unjustified, do not reach the statute book.
I trust that that will be the case this evening.

1.17 a.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I want to ask the indulgence of hon. Members for three minutes. This matter came before the House in 1966, when I introduced a Bill to abolish hare coursing. That was the first time for 20 years. Since then, many of my hon. Friends, supported by some hon. Members on the other side of the House, have every year brought forward a Bill to abolish hare coursing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw), my right hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Mr. Sheldon), and many other hon. Members, have consistently fought in this House the battle to abolish hare coursing.
I understand that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), who has consistently opposed such legislation, must feel that this is a sad occasion. I think it is a joyous occasion that we have now reached the Third Reading of the Bill.
I hope that the Lords will have sufficient intelligence not to oppose this legislation. The argument about Press freedom, the argument about the Industry Bill, and even the argument about the Community Land Bill, will shrink into insignificance when compared with the much greater anger that will be developed in the country if the Lords are stupid enough to oppose this Bill. In fact, the amazing thing is that it could be the death-knell of the Lords if they oppose the hare coursing Bill. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh but they will find that


if this Bill is opposed and thrown out by the Lords it will be no laughing matter.
If there are spoilsports who have opposed this so-called sport, then they are spoilsports of long standing. I draw attention to Sir Thomas More's "Utopia", in which there is a whole section categorising hare coursing as a most barbarous sport which ought not to take place in any civilised society. Civilised people throughout the ages have opposed hare coursing from the very day that it began during the time of the Roman Empire. It will be a magnificent day for us in this country and in Northern Ireland—I agree absolutely with those who say the Bill should apply to all parts of the United Kingdom—when we see the abolition of this cruel so-called sport.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: After a number of attempts, I am grateful now to have this opportunity to take part for the first time in the debates on this Bill. I have not been in the House for as long as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), whose sincerity in this matter I respect, but in my short time here I have had the opportunity to see that this issue was coming up and to try to look at it with as much care and in as much detail as I could. I felt that I was called upon to decide whether a Bill to abolish hare coursing should be given, on this occasion, a Third Reading, on as rational a basis as possible, and I did so from a relatively uncommitted standpoint.
If anything, I was inclined to accept the claims of the supporters of the Bill. As I understood them, they said that hare coursing involved an exceptional degree of cruelty and, therefore, that it should be singled out from other activities involving the killing of animals and banned. They said that it should be singled out, because of the exceptional degree of cruelty, from other activities involving the killing of animals in sports such as beagling, fox hunting and fishing. They said that it should be singled out from other occasions in which animals were killed, and the Minister herself referred to matters not affected by the Bill such as two farmers walking with their dogs in a field, the dogs putting up a hare, and killing it. They also said that it should be singled out from the killing of animals for control

purposes, and that it should be singled out from the killing of animals for the purpose of obtaining food.
The case of the supporters of the Bill is that the degree of cruelty involved in hare coursing puts it in a different category. When the Bill's opponents have said that this is a simple wedge and that the intention was to take field sports one by one and eventually to ban the lot, the supporters of the Bill have denied this and said that they were taking hare coursing because it was considered particularly barbaric. Although that is not the view of all the Bill's supporters, I assume that it is the view of the Minister and that it is the basis on which the Home Office is dealing with the Bill; in other words, that for some reason based on exceptional cruelty this sport must be singled out.
Influenced by those arguments, I looked in more detail at the basis of the allegation of exceptional cruelty, and a number of features form part of that claim. I was told, for example, that in hare coursing as practised in England, hares are captured, taken to a place in which they are set free, and then chased by dogs set upon them. I was told that dogs are deliberately given the advantage of hares in an enclosed field from which the hares cannot readily escape. I was told that hares are usually killed by being torn apart. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) rested his case on the frequency with which hares are torn apart alive and that that is the manner of their death in many cases. It has been suggested that nearly all hares are killed in this activity and that their condition after death makes it clear that circumstances of this kind attended their deaths. Indeed, it is said that the object of the sport is to kill the hare.
Closer examination of the rules of the sport and of the way in which it is carried out at the meeting which I attended indicated to me that this is not the case. The rules specifically exclude the releasing of captive hares. There is no evidence that these rules are flouted, and opportunities have been offered to the Government, if they wished to tolerate coursing, to include means in the Bill to make sure that the rules are not flouted.
It is clear that an enclosed field from which hares cannot escape is not accommodated by the rules, and certainly that


was not the practice at the coursing meeting which I attended. The hares were able to escape, and the majority did. However, those which were killed were in the majority of cases killed very quickly, and not by the process of being torn apart, which has formed such a crucial part of the discussions of those who support the Bill.
Dogs moving at great speed normally do not have to kill smaller animals than themselves by tearing them apart. Normally a dog delivers a bite at the back of the neck, which is a far more expeditious way of killing its quarry. It was disturbing to me to hear claims advanced by people whose views and sincerity I respect which were far from the truth as I witnessed it.

Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those hon. Members who have consistently opposed hare coursing have never advanced any of the claims he says they have advanced? We have never talked about enclosed hare coursing. We have never said that hares did not get away or any of the things he attributes to us. He is advancing, in order to knock it down, an argument that we have never used.

Mr. Beith: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will find that I am trying to dismiss his argument lightly, but nothing he says can refute the number of people who have put precisely these arguments, some in this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who?"] I ask hon. Members to look in Hansard at the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens—

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) is here and can speak for himself. He does not need the hon. Member to tell him what he said last Friday. I repeat that when two specially trained animals such as the hounds we are talking about are running at full speed in competition to catch a hare, one often grabs a part of the hare and within a fraction of a second the second hound is snapping at another part of the hare's body. It is at that point, I say, that the hare is literally torn apart in competition between two hounds. That is the cruelty of the case.

Mr. Beith: I do not wish to detract from the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, which I listened to on Friday. He said:
…I deeply regret that there are still those who enjoy watching dogs chase a hare until it is caught and who stand watching with relish the tearing to pieces of a living animal."—[Official Report, 24th October 1975; Vol. 889, c. 912.]
I do not think he would want to deny that. He rests his case heavily on that aspect. As I observed it, most hares were not killed in this way—

Mr. Spriggs: "Most"?

Mr. Beith: Most of those hares which are killed in coursing, which are themselves the minority, are not killed in this way.

Mr. Spriggs: Let me make this clear. I do not say that all hares are killed in this way. The hon. Gentleman implies that, because all hares are not torn apart, he will support the Opposition. My case still stands if only one hare in a thousand is torn to pieces while it is still alive. To me that means that an organised sport of this kind is barbaric and cruel.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to my argument and find it in himself to explain to me, perhaps at a later date, how he can rest his argument on the abolition of a sport in which the hare is likely to be killed by the first dog which reaches it, but for some curious reason does not wish to extend his argument to the chasing of a hare by a pack of dogs, as in other sports. I suggest that he has moved his ground from the fact that he has a genuine revulsion to something which he supposes to be a more frequent occurrence in hare coursing than I have found it to be. The inconsistency will come out if I am allowed to develop my argument a little further.
Hare coursing, on any index of relative cruelty—or, to put it another way, of pain and discomfort at death; one looks for some attempt to define cruelty—can be compared favourably with other sports like beagling, fox hunting and fishing. It does not seem to me to be manifestly more cruel for a hare to be killed by the relatively painless methods of coursing than for a fish to be played on a hook.
Nor does it seem to compare unfavourably with the other methods of killing hares, which are primarily snaring and shooting. I do not see how the House can accept that it is more cruel that a hare should be killed by the generally quicker process of being run down by a dog at speed than to be shot and left wounded—as I have seen several times in my own county of Northumberland—or that it should be left in a snare, which I have not seen. However, I know enough about snares to realise how they work.
Having been unconvinced by those principles, on what principle can I vote or ask others to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill if I cannot single this out as exceptional or distinctive cruelty over and above other sporting activities or other animal control activities or animal killing activities? I considered the possibilities. One is the possibility, which some hon. Member may advance, that it is unacceptable that animals should be killed by any means. Those who would advance that proposition and carry it to the point of being vegetarians—and we respect their views—would be a small minority. They would be rather smaller in number than those who are prepared to support the Bill, and they do not include the hon. Member for Walton, so I presume it is not on that principle that the Bill rests.
The second possibility is that it is unnecessary that hares should be killed. It might be easier to advance the argument that no hares should be killed, but that would be betraying some lack of knowledge of the real situation in the countryside. Anyone who knows agricultural areas recognises that in recent years there has been a substantial increase in the rabbit and hare population, and a couple of mild winters have made the increase more marked. There must be, and will continue to be, a considerable element of control, and that is likely to be exercised by means other than coursing, as it is now where coursing does not take place. I presume that few amongst those who support the Bill reject the principle of the control of the level of population of animals which, however attractive or desirable, in large numbers represent a threat to production in agriculture or forestry. The Forestry Commission has to recognise this principle in controlling

the number of deer in its forests. Deer are attractive, but the Forestry Commission has to control the numbers.
The same is manifestly true of hares. I do not think that anyone who supports the Bill has sought to rest his case on the principle that hares will not have to be killed, and therefore all those in favour of the Bill have been prepared to accept the alternative possibility of hares being killed by other means.
There is another possibility, and that is that dogs should not be used to kill hares, but the Bill will allow hares to be hunted by a pack of dogs or to be chased by one dog. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the strange activity that it might seem, the coursing of a hare by one dog. There is nothing in the Bill to preclude unorganised coursing in which hares are chased by two dogs, so long as it is not an organised competition. In any case, anyone who seeks to raise the general principle that dogs should not be used for killing hares ought to recognise that dogs are probably better at killing hares than is a man who is not a good shot aiming at a small and rapidly moving animal from a considerable distance.
The last of the principles which seems to provide some possible basis for sup porting the Bill—and I think that this is one which the hon. Member for Walton would support—

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has left out one essential principle, and that is the killing of animals by man for pleasure. That degrades the human being concerned.

Mr. Beith: That is precisely the point to which I was coming. Just before the hon. Gentleman intervened I was about to say that the point on which the hon. Member for Walton would rest his case is that it is unacceptable that man should kill animals for or in the course of sport. I am sure that I can put those words into his mouth without misrepresenting him.
If that is the basis of the Bill, I ask the supporters of it to come clean and say so. They should also realise that that is their view and that it ought not necessarily to be imposed upon others. What the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) thinks is morally degrading may


not be what I think is morally degrading. This House has argued for long about how far one can go in determining what is morally acceptable conduct in others. If this view is to be imposed on others, it must not be imposed selectively or arbitrarily, in the way the Bill proposes, to the exclusion—

Mr. Cyril Smith: I ask my hon. Friend to make it clear that he speaks for himself and not for his colleagues, because I shall support the Government on this matter tonight. Will my hon. Friend agree that in this matter, as in most other matters, half a loaf is better than none and that if this abolishes one cruel sport, it is a step along the right road?

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right. I speak as an individual. In previous debates on this matter most of us have spoken as individuals. However, this is now a Government Bill. Opposition Members will be voting with the Government and there may be Labour Members who are not even present because they are not entirely in sympathy with the Bill.
If supporters of the Bill hold the view that no sport involving the killing of animals should be tolerated, let them say so as my hon. Friend has done and not try to rest on a case—which has proved incapable of bearing the weight—that this sport is exceptionally cruel and in quite a different category from other sports. The case for a total ban on field sports is not the one that has been advanced so far. We are bound to ask why hare coursing has been chosen. If the principle is that half a loaf is better than no bread, why has this particular portion been chosen? I am bound to wonder whether it is because a small number of people are involved whose position in the community is quite unimportant in conventionally accepted terms. If it is because it is the sport of miners and milkmen rather than the sport of more highly placed people in society, it would be a curious argument for Labour Members to find convincing. However, there is a more important point.

Mr. Thomas Torney: What is more important than a miner or a milkman?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) should know from his interest in agricultural matters that neither of those categories should be passed off as lightly as some of his hon. Friends seem to think on occasions.
There is a more important, fundamental and crucial argument. The argument that has been advanced by the hon. Member for Cannock and the hon. Member for Walton has more to do with their personal values than it has with the welfare of animals. I ask them to make that important distinction. I do not object to either of them saying that there is a great moral issue here about whether man kills animals in the course of sport, but they must realise that there is a difference between saying that and saying that they propose to do what is best for the welfare of the animal concerned. The two may coincide in some instances, but there is no guarantee that they will do so in all instances.
That statement precludes the question: what would be the fate of the animal in question if it were not killed in the course of sport? It is a question which some hon. Members do not seem willing to ask. Would its death be more or less cruel? If they were to say that its death would be substantially less cruel or not necessary, their moral case about what they should do would coincide happily with their case about the welfare of animals.

Mr. Burden: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it is better for a person to die young, quickly and suddenly rather than to live to a ripe old age and die more slowly?

Mr. Beith: No. I am asking the question whether it is better that an animal should die in the course of a sport in which it is killed fairly quickly, or that it should be killed in some other way more slowly. The distinction that I draw relates to coursing, snaring and shooting. If the argument is whether the animal is killed or not killed, we enter a different area. However, the basis for the Bill is not the assertion that no hare should be killed.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: Is the argument that the hon. Gentleman advances that the Bill provides for the slaughter of animals by shooting or any


other means rather than by coursing, because there is nothing in the Bill that suggests that anyone who does not course must necessarily go out to shoot? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should go into the countryside and discuss with the hares in the field how they would like to die. During the whole of this debate, as far as the Opposition are concerned, there have been no suggestions at all about the welfare of the particular animal. All we are told is that if they are not slaughtered in this barbaric fashion someone else will come along with a shotgun or some other method of killing them. We have not subscribed to that. All that we are saying, in effect, is that this sport is barbaric, and for that reason we oppose it.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has put his finger on the issue. He cannot simply sit back and say "I have passed a Bill which has prevented hares from being coursed. From now on they will live to a ripe old age." The facts of the matter are far from the case. The hon. Gentleman ought to know—if he does not know now, what were all the debates for?—that the number of hares is being and is always likely to be controlled. If it is not controlled by coursing, as it is in a small number of areas, it will be controlled, as it is in other areas, by snares and primarily by shooting. But shooting is not a very good way of dealing with hares. In many cases it leads to a slow and painful death.
Hon. Members must distinguish between saying that they dislike a particular sport and do not think, as a moral issue, that human beings should be involved in the course of sport in the killing of animals, and saying "I want to see the best for this animal". The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should consider the welfare of the animal. But if that is the issue we cannot preclude it, in any given sport, by saying that no animal should be killed for sport. One has to ask the question, in each case, whether it can be killed in a better way. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the hare will live to a ripe old age, he is mistaken.

Mr. Burden: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is getting too involved. It is he who says that it is better for the hare to be killed quickly by dogs as a young animal rather than for it to live

longer in normal conditions. I think that is quite wrong.

Mr. Beith: No, the alternative I pose is simple. What most people who know the countryside would argue is that the real alternative is apparent now. One can see both possibilities now. In some areas no coursing takes place and if agriculture takes place hares are controlled. They do not live undisturbed for long. A significant number must be shot. In coursing areas many hares live an undisturbed life. Those living in coursing areas which are killed are killed by dogs. Those living in other areas are normally killed by the gun.
The basic question is very difficult to answer. I would find it very hard to accept the apparent argument of Labour Members that death from a dog in coursing is more cruel than death from shooting. In many cases the latter is too slow and painful a death. It is certainly not normal practice in coursing for hares to escape injured and to suffer the consequences of that. Some Labour Members have failed to draw the distinction between the moral conclusion that people should not be involved in any sport in which animals are killed, and the welfare of the animals. It may be that in some instances those two conditions should be identical, but hon. Members cannot preclude the argument by supposing that it is automatically to the benefit of the animal concerned—I am not talking about otters and protected animals—and that its death by some other means will be better than the death it will have in this way.
In the absence of any clear principle to support the singling out of a sport which is well regulated and the rules of which—to a surprising extent to anyone not previously familiar with them—seek to avoid and reduce unnecessary injury and remove cruelty, it seems to me that in no way is the case made by the supporters of the Bill.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It had been my intention merely to rise to thank the Government for keeping the undertaking that they gave me in the last Session of Parliament that they would introduce this Measure as a Government Bill and facilitate its progress through the House.
I am grateful to the Government for doing what I regarded as being their job, anyway, because the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) introduced whilst in Opposition was the Government's own Bill from 1970 which they had "whipped" from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) and before him from another of my hon. Friends.
The Government had been responding not only to a clamour from their back benchers but to a general feeing of revulsion throughout the country at what was termed a sport. Had the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) done my hon. Friends and myself the courtesy of reading the speeches we made on Ten-Minute Bills in the past, when no Tory Member stood up to oppose us, when nobody had the courage of his gaming or sporting convictions to run a course with us through the Lobby, so that we had to put in our own Tellers, he would have found therein none of the skittles which he set up to knock down for his own amusement.
The speeches which my hon. Friends and I made were simple and direct. First and foremost, we made the important point that people who object to sports of this nature do not have any fanciful or idealistic picture of the life of an animal or of its place in creation. We regard animals as being there to be used by man and for man's benefit, but not to be abused by man.
Therefore, we accept that there may be times when animals may be painfully controlled or exterminated in the interests of mankind, but at no time—this is the important point at issue—should the life of an animal be put at risk merely to indulge the selfish pleasure of a superior being. That is all that the argument is about. It is simple and straightforward.
Points about controlling animals and about much harsher deaths have no merit in this argument. We do not wish those deaths upon animals, but nature is cruel, and that is the way that nature has created them. Even if animals have those deaths, they will not be deaths which have been deliberately contrived simply and purely so that men can sport one dog against another and see which can get the most points by its agility, its ability to turn fast.
We have said consistently in these debates that we know that the object of coursing is not to kill the hare. Unfortunately, this point is not always made clear to hares in the course of the event, and some of them never live long enough to realise it. Indeed, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed may be interested to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South and I attended a coursing meeting. At a distance no greater than that of the hon. Gentleman from me we saw a hare caught by its head and hindquarters and torn apart, screaming literally like a baby. At this same coursing we saw a hare tossed up into the air by one dog and caught by another. After that we saw beaters rushing through to try to give the hare a painless death, if that is possible, with hobnail boots on some occasions and by trying to break its neck on others.
The point at issue is not what other types of death there may be, but whether mankind should deliberately, for the purpose of indulging a selfish pleasure—the satisfaction of watching two dogs gaming against each other—put other animals at risk. We regard it as degrading of our own species. For that reason, we wish the Bill to have its Third Reading.

1.50 a.m.

Mr. Powell: The extremely comprehensive speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the brief rejoinder of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) have illustrated how difficult and complex is the reasoning which lies behind legislation upon cruelty to animals which is by way of creating new crimes; for that is essentially what we do by such legislation. I was not brought up in the country, nor, as a young man, did I have any acquaintance with field sports. I came to them only in middle life, and so perhaps I have applied my mind to this subject from a somewhat different point of view from that of many hon. Members with whom I agree that this legislation is ill conceived.
There is one direction from which I am sure we cannot successfully approach this question, and that is what I might call the anthropomorphic approach—the identification of the animal and its experiences with supposed analogies in human life. There was an exchange between the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and the


hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) which illustrated the almost impossible difficulty into which we get in terms of talking about a death in youth, a death in ripe old age, from the point of view of a human being, as applied and cast upon the screen of what we imagine as animal life.
There is an impassable gulf which separates our comprehension of our life and the universe around us from that of the animal creation. Indeed, many of the anthropomorphic arguments clearly break down. For example, they are so much more vivid when applied to an animal like a hare—warm-blooded, with some analogy to a human being—than they are when applied to a cold-blooded creature like a fish. I am very much struck by the fact that if we were to be strict in our anthropomorphic argument we would find much more horror and disgust in the death inflicted upon fish—not merely in fishing for sport, but in the course of fishery—than we would find in many field sports. Therefore, the anthropomorphic approach is barred.
Nor do I believe that we can merely proceed from the general attitude of society. True it is that the attitude of society to cruelty to animals alters, and that that which I believe by common agreement is criminal today could not have been made criminal two or three centuries ago, simply because to make it criminal would not have corresponded to the common outlook in society at that time. Certainly it is a condition of making good law that what the law outlaws should be rejected by the majority of society. But that in itself will not provide us with the simple justification for making criminal an act which has not hitherto been criminal.
There are two, and only two, criteria which will bear examination and will sustain the weight of legislation. The first is that we are justified in rendering unlawful that which causes reasonable offence to those who involuntarily are brought within the knowledge and context of it. The second is that we should outlaw that which depraves not only those who engage in it but those who encourage them in it and are aware that they are engaging in it. Therefore, the tendency to deprave expressed by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs)

in his use of the words "with relish" attached to the killing of an animal, as he believed in the course of a sport, and the offence reasonably caused to other members of society, seem to me to be the two bases upon which, if it is to be justified, the creation of criminal offences by such legislation should rest. I do not believe that the case has been made out on those counts either in respect of hare coursing or other sports. I am not talking about fishing. I refer to sports in which animals are chased and killed by other animals.
From direct knowledge and experience I do not believe that the supposed relish of seeing the animal killed plays any part in that which fascinates those who engage in these sports and which makes for their enjoyment. It is contrary to anything which I have observed to suppose that those who take part in these sports do so because they are motivated by a sadistic delight in contemplating the death of an animal. The death of the animal in all these sports is incidental not merely in the mechanics of the sport but in the motivation of those who take part in it. It is much more incidental than is the death of the fish in the pursuit of angling, for example.
As to the justifiable offence and disgust which might be caused to the observer, I accept that there are those with preconceived views who deliberately expose themselves to the experience of seeing these sports carried on. We are not justified in taking that social offence into account in making a new law. We must be satisfied that disgust and indignation are widely felt by those who, in the course of their lives and going about their callings, are brought into contact with these field sports. I do not believe that that case has been made out. Nor do I believe that this or kindred field sports inspire aversion and rejection in the bulk of those members of the public who are aware that they are carried on, and especially that part of the public amongst whom these sports are pursued. Presumably, it is to that social forum that we should look to see whether there is the social rejection and the social offence which would justify legislation.
That is my conclusion. That is the reason why I have always resisted this type of legislation. On neither of the two criteria which seem to justify legislation—the tendency to deprave those who


pursue these sports, and the offence caused to society—is the case made out.
This is a case which we must make from man to man. It is true that the subject is the animal kingdom. But we are concerned with men in society, from which the true arguments should be drawn. In my opinion, which is based on what knowledge I have to offer, that case fails.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has brought the great power of his logic to bear on this argument, as he has on so many other arguments. He has made a contribution of enormous importance to this debate. I was especially impressed by the argument he adduced in his comparison between coursing and other field sports. He said that, from his observation, the death of the quarry was incidental—certainly, in my fairly long experience of field sports that has always been the case—but that if we were to consider the death of the quarry the field sport which stands out as one in which the sportsman takes pleasure in the end of the quarry is fishing.
I do not know how many fishermen are present in the House this evening, but I dare say there are one or two. I am a fisherman and I enjoy the sport. I openly admit that in certain types of game fishing to get a fish on the line marks the beginning of a fascinating and exciting struggle.
Why has there been no word about fishing from those who are opposed to field sports? Why has this particular field sport been singled out for attention? It would be worth while for the House to consider those questions as a sequel to the matters raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I go so far as to suggest that one reason may be that there are a great many fishermen in this country, but not so many people who follow hare coursing. That is nothing for the supporters of the Bill to be proud of, but it happens to be a fact.
Earlier this evening it fell to my lot, for no particular reason, to entertain a number of young people for a drink in my flat. They were of the same age as my children. They were of voting age. During the course of conversation one

of them asked what I would be doing this evening. I said that I was going to the House of Commons. I was then asked what was going on there and I said that among other things we were to discuss, probably until fairly late, the matter of hare coursing. Hon. Members should have seen the faces of those young people. They said to me, "Is that really what you ought to be discussing at this juncture in our affairs? Is it really the most important thing that you should be engaged on?" They asked who was responsible for introducing it, and I said that the Government were behind it.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) insisted, earlier, in his short intervention, that he had introduced the Bill in 1960, and that since then many of this other hon. Friends had supported it. However, he did not deny that the Government were involved in this matter. The young people, whether for or against the legislation, were shattered that we were so engaged.
No doubt it will be made clear in the Press tomorrow morning—the country will be interested to know—that during these proceedings the Secretary of State for Employment was present. With the present level of unemployment the right hon. Gentleman has much on his plate. Moreover, a short time ago the Secretary of State for Social Services, who is responsible for the health service, which is collapsing around us, was also present.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the subject of hare coursing.

Mr. Hastings: I stand corrected. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be a matter of some note that those right hon. Members should be here at this state of our country's fortunes—when most of us are deeply concerned about the economic crisis, apart from the other matters which I have mentioned—to talk about this matter. Why are they here?

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the human condition in this country was much more serious at the time when cock fighting and bear baiting were prohibited than it is now?

Mr. Hastings: That may or may not be so, but I do not think that it bears in any degree on this matter.
I submit that those right hon. Members are here tonight because this Bill is not only a party matter, but a matter of a section of the Labour Party. It was introduced by the hon. Member for Walton, as the hon. Gentleman proudly told us this evening. Indeed, he told us that many of his hon. Friends had supported it since. We are all sufficiently familiar with the activities of the hon. Member for Walton and his group of friends on the Marxist side of the Labour Party to know quite well where the political parentage of the Bill lies. I mention this at the beginning of my remarks because I do not want anybody in the country, and certainly not in this House, to be under any illusion about the matter.
I turn now to the Bill itself. [Interruption.] I have a good deal to say. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will contain themselves it will be easier for me to proceed a little faster.
One comparison has been made a number of times in the course of the debates to which I have listened both in Committee and in the House. The view has been expressed that there was no need for hon. Gentlemen to go and pay any attention to a hare coursing meeting. I instantly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who did see a hare coursing meeting. However, most hon. Gentlemen opposite have not bothered to attend such a meeting at all.
The argument adduced has been that rape is unpleasant but that there is no need to witness it to condemn it. Other unattractive activities have also been mentioned in the same way. I do not regard that argument as relevant. After all, in the earliest times of recorded history, alas, rape existed, and so did hare coursing. If this debate had taken place in the days of Assyria or ancient Rome—for all that I or any of us know, it did take place—the arguments might have been roughly the same as those which were adduced today. I do not think that argument can possibly be advanced, and I hope that we shall not hear it advanced any more.
The first question which we should ask ourselves in approaching the conclusion of our debates on the Bill is whether hare

coursing is fair. I readily admit that for those who hold the view that any field sport is unfair, this argument could not apply, but for those who are prepared to look at it in a dispassionate way and to compare it with any other field sport, it seems reasonable to pay some attention to the studies of Stable and Stuttard, who, to my satisfaction, show that the hare matched against greyhounds provides, in every sense of the word, a fair sport.
The hare has on her side speed and immense manoeuvrability. The dog has speed and sight. The hare actually watches the dogs approaching, calculates when to turn, and when she does flings the dogs yards away; two turns and she is already gaining. She does not even accelerate until two turns away. The proportion of hares that escape has been made clear during the debate. By any standard that is a fair sport, particularly with the rules of the Coursing Club to support it.
The second question we should ask ourselves is whether the sport is cruel, and to what extent it is cruel compared with other sports. The Scott Henderson Report should be a guide to this. So many quotations have been produced from that report in Committee and on the Floor of the House that it should not be necessary to return to it, but in the light of what we have heard this evening I think we should. The terms of reference of the committee were:
to enquire into practices or activities which may involve cruelty to British wild mammals".
The committee produced a mass of complex material and several recommendations which have since been more or less ignored in legislation.
The main component factor in any consideration of cruelty must be pain. How much do we understand about the question of pain in wild animals, and does it differ from pain as we understand it?
This passage from the report is relevant:
Pain is of the utmost biological value to animals because, in general, what is painful is also harmful and consequently animals tend to avoid anything which gives them the sensation of pain. Pain is the 'conditioning' stimulus which teaches an animal to avoid what is physically harmful to it and this end could hardly be achieved unless the pain felt by animals were painful in the ordinary sense.


Pain is therefore a sensation of clear-cut biological usefulness.
That may seem callous, but it is a very different matter from pain as we conceive it. The report goes on:
Very detailed and confident statements about the degree of pain which animals suffer as a result of one sort of inquiry or another are therefore only too likely to be misleading.
That bears closely on the charge of cruelty. The committee was satisfied that animals do suffer from acute fear and terror, but the report goes on:
We are not, however, satisfied that wild animals suffer from apprehension or the after-effects of fear to the same extent as human beings…or that a frightening experience has the same serious or lasting effect upon them as it may have upon us.
Anyone who has seen wild game in Africa or in this country pursued and subsequently feeding quietly, after one has been killed, will confirm that it is a different matter from pain as we understand it, and cruelty must surely be part of the same argument.
Without apology, I shall quote one other section from the report. If we are seriously concerned with what is behind the Bill we must surely be concerned with cruelty. Is it cruel, and if so, to what extent is it cruel? If we come to the conclusion that Labour Members do not understand about cruelty to animals in these circumstances, or are not concerned primarily with cruelty, I see no purpose in the Bill.
I quote another section of the Scott Henderson Report which bears upon the matter which I seek to explain. The report reads:
It will be convenient to mention here another common misconception which, as in other cases, is due to a lack of knowledge about animals and an inadequate understanding of the way in which they live. Many people are under the impression that a wild animal which is not hunted or otherwise pursued by man continues to live in peace and security until it reaches old age and eventually dies a 'natural' death, which is assumed to be a relatively painless one. We agree that it may die a 'natural' death, but we are convinced that such a death is by no means usually painless and peaceful or that the animal necessarily lives very much longer than it would have done if it had not been killed by man. The ravages of predators and parasites and of acute or chronic infections entail deaths that must often be as painful as, and are frequently more prolonged than, any with which the animal may meet as the quarry in a field sport. Any animals which have natural enemies are more likely to be preyed upon as they grow older

and more vulnerable…We are satisfied that animals that are not killed by man seldom reach old age and frequently meet a death as painful as that involved in a field sport, and while we do not accept this as a defence of field sports and other activities we think it is an important consideration which should always be borne in mind.
To what extent are Labour hon. Members prepared to bear that in mind? I could continue in this vein, and if Labour hon. Members still do not seize the point I shall do so. However, to sum up this section of my remarks, I return to the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and to other similar speeches, in which have been explained ad nauseam the alternatives to coursing as a method of controlling the hare—namely, killing by snaring or shooting. I tried to explain on Friday that that was inevitable.
Control of the hare is reaching serious and even dangerous proportions in certain areas where the hare is particularly prevalent—namely, East Anglia and Lincolnshire—because of the damage it does to various crops, including sugar beet and cereals. There is no question but that that will continue.
In some areas where, four or five years ago—I quote the evidence gathered by the Stable and Stuttard Report—150 to 200 hares were shot in an afternoon or a day, nowadays only 20 or 30 are shot. If hare coursing is done away with, is it seriously suggested that shooting will in some way be carried out less often? On the contrary, it will increase. There is direct evidence that coursing tends to conserve, because wherever there is co-operation between farmers or shooting syndicates and hare coursing clubs the population of hares in the area concerned remains stable. As I have tried to point out, that is not the case where coursing clubs are not active.
Those who support the Bill will ensure that the tendency for the hare population to decline will become a certainty. The next thing they will ensure is that control, particularly in farming districts where the brown hare is plentiful, will increase. That means snaring or shooting. Overwhelmingly, shooting is the most important alternative. Do the supporters of the Bill seriously say that that is not as cruel as hare coursing?
How many Labour Members have ever seen a hare or any other mammal shot, or


caught in a snare? The snare is the nastiest of the lot. All the talk of screaming hares being torn to pieces in hare coursing is a monstrous and idiotic exaggeration, as any of us who have seen the sport know well. If one shoots hares, one certainly hears them scream. How many are such good shots and so careful that they always kill a hare as it speeds by? It is not an easy target, as some of my hon. Friends know well. It is a large beast, but because of variations in its speed it is often missed and, even more often, wounded. The screams are a factor in those circumstances.
Every Labour Member who supports this Bill is, without question, increasing the possibility of cruelty occurring. Cruelty is increased by the Bill and not reduced by it. If any hon. Gentleman denies that, let him rise to his feet and give logical arguments to support his view. We believe that if the Bill goes through its effects will be more rather than less cruel to the species concerned. If Labour Members are not concerned about cruelty, what are they concerned about? [An HON. MEMBER: "Unnecessary cruelty."] That comment is typical of the confusion among Labour Members who support the Bill. Do they wish to stop hare coursing, in the certain knowledge that shooting and snaring will increase? Are they content that suffering will increase?
I believe that the Bill has nothing to do with cruelty. It has to do, first, with politics and secondly with people. The Bill's supporters wish to regulate morals according to their own concepts because they, from their own prejudice and ignorance, believe that people should behave in a certain way over hare coursing and everything else and must be made to behave in that way. Here in the Bill is Socialism par excellence. That is what is behind the Bill; it has nothing to do with cruelty. I hope that those who are members of the League Against Cruel Sports will reflect on this.
The best summing up of the Bill I have read anywhere was contained in an article in the Gazette and Guardian on 25th March this year. Its correspondent said:
Alas, the kind of analysis I have sketched out above has been sadly lacking in discussions on the subject which has taken place in Parliament and elsewhere. The opponents of coursing are organised and

vociferous, heedless of truth or rational argument in their campaign against followers of this ancient sport. Set against all our national problems the question whether the coursing of the hare is to be made yet another criminal offence is not of great import. But I do say that if the Government lends its weight and aid to the proposal it will be a bad day for liberty. New laws should not grow from clamour but should be framed after fair discussion and in the general interest. Unless necessity dictates, new crimes should not be made of what have hitherto been innocent pursuits.
That is as succinct and accurate a summing-up of what we are about this evening as any I have read.
As to whether any sensible ground for conviction could ever be found, that is another matter which my hon. Friends and I have tried to pursue and delve into, from the beginning of our proceedings in Committee, right up to now. It seems to me to be a ludicrous picture. How on earth are the police, supposing that they wish to proceed with this—I should think they would be very strange if they were on the side of this Bill—to identify people engaged in coursing matches in the countryside?
All too few Labour Members spend enough time in the countryside even to present a case about this, in my view. I should say that it is very unlikely that the police would be able to prove anything. It would give rise to all manner of unpleasant cases and to friction with the police in country districts.
How can a Government justify legislation which makes it legal for a farmer to set one dog against a hare—to course a hare—but illegal to set two? How can they justify such a thing, particularly since they admit that control is necessary? If the man who looses two greyhounds simply says that he is doing it because of his sugar beet, how are the police to prove that this is a match? I cannot see any possible means of bringing a successful case.
How can the Government justify legislation which disregards the considered advice of every authority—Scott Henderson and others—appointed to look into this question? All of them make plain that cruelty is a secondary factor, if, indeed, it is a factor at all.
The only thing we are concerned with here is a synthetic morality. Everyone must conform to this prejudice because those who support the Bill think that


it is right. The hon. Lady, for all the courtesy and patience she has shown, has spoiled her record as far as I am concerned.
We had a three-minutes' speech from the hon. Member for Walton, mostly comprised of threats to the House of Lords. I am glad that he has returned to his seat. I am sure that we were all very grateful for his speech, which ended with an open threat to the House of Lords over the Hare Coursing Bill. I am sure that any Member of the House of Lords who bothers to read what the hon. Member said will find his resolution strengthened, rather than the other way round.
We have drinking, gambling, smoking, homosexuality and pornography. None of us likes these things, but they are all tolerated. Why do the Government pick on this ancient pursuit? The Bill is an insult to Parliament. It is a mean-minded, miserable little Bill, born of prejudice, ignorance and expediency in the Labour Party. It demeans the Labour Party, just as it demeans Parliament itself, and I hope it gets its deserts tonight.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Mr. Carol Mather.

Mr. Mather: Mr. Mather rose—

Mr. Dudley Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we to assume, your having called the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, that the debate is being wound up? I have been present throughout these proceedings, hoping to make a brief contribution. I understood that it was the prerogative of the Chair to call a back bencher who indicated his desire to take part in a debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If a Front Bench spokesman rises, it is also the custom of the Chair to call him.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assume that this means that the debate will continue. I, too, would like to intervene briefly after my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) has spoken.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is never customary for the Chair to say how long a debate

shall last. I simply called the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. Mr. Mather.

2.31 a.m.

Mr. Mather: It is very much to be regretted that my hon. Friends have not had the chance to intervene briefly, and I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will use your discretion to ensure that they have an opportunity to make their contributions.
In this Chamber today, on both sides, we are acting out a charade. It is widely reported in the Press that this Bill will get no further. I do not know the source of those reports, but, if they be true, what are we doing at this hour, being forced to discuss a Bill which the Government know will not become law and which they failed to get on Friday because there was not enough enthusiasm on their side of the House? They have shown that they cannot control their troops. The country will ask why the time of Parliament is being wasted in this way when we are likely to see the Bill die in any event.
It is appropriate to recall how the Bill was introduced, and how it has reached its present stage. Propertly speaking, it was a Private Member's Bill, and it was then taken over by the Government. It was properly a Private Member's Bill because it is about animals and about personal liberty. As such, as it is highly contentious.
Being a Private Member's Bill originally, it had none of the preparatory work which is expected in the case of a Government Bill. There were no consultations. There was no consultation, for example, with the National Coursing Club or with the British Field Sports Society. There was not even a letter of warning to either body that the Government were dissatisfied with the way in which the sport was conducted. The Government say that everyone was aware of what was happening, but there was no official intimation of their intentions, and there were no consultations. There was no committee of inquiry. The Minister said that committees of inquiry were unsatisfactory because their reports were sometimes too neutral, as was the Scott Henderson Report. There was no White Paper.
The Bill was introduced late in the Session, which is not the usual time to bring in controversial legislation. It has


absorbed a great deal of the time of Home Office officials. Six of them devoted to it many hours of their time for four weeks during the summer months when they should have been doing more useful work concerned with such matters as the maintenance of public order. Certainly they should not have been wasting their time on this peccadillo of a Bill.
The manner in which the Second Reading debate was conducted, on a so-called free vote, was laughable. A high-level meeting at Chequers was broken up, and Cabinet Ministers were drafted here to vote. One Minister was even brought from Northern Ireland by air. It was a pathetic performance, and it attracted ridicule.
All this was done simply to deprive about 1,000 people of their favourite sport, which consists of killing fewer than 600 hares in one year, bearing in mind that in a single hare shoot about 1,000 are killed. All this was done at a time of acute economic crisis, when we had massive unemployment and when inflation was hitting the roof. Earlier today, we discussed the present chaos in the National Health Service, and there was a large lobby of nurses. Where was the anti-field sports lobby today? At a time when the House of Commons administration is breaking down through being overloaded, this Bill is given preference.
Our use of time in the debates on the Bill has been criticised. We expected that. But that is the prerogative of the Opposition. One of our jobs is to protect the interests of minorities. With a Government-backed Bill, the democratic process is at its weakest, because we have to admit that we have no strong second Chamber. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that if the Lords opposed the Bill, that would be the end of them, but I hope he realises that if the Lords were abolished, some other second Chamber would have to be put in its place, which would probably be far stronger. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That reaction proves my point. No wonder there is a call for a Bill of Rights and a written constitution and electoral reform and even for primaries, so as to prevent the country from being dominated by unrepresentative minorities. As a minority Government they have to

face the fact that they are unrepresentative.
To continue with the effects of the Bill—more hares will be shot and wounded and there will be more hunting for the pot with coursing dogs, but with no judges or officials, and no Coursing Club rules. Several thousand dogs will have to be destroyed because there will be no work and no market for them. [Interruption.] Can hon. Members say how many dogs will be destroyed? I suggest that it will be a large number. It will mean the extinction of several breeds as we know them, except as pets. It will upset the balance of the countryside and there will be no restraints on the extermination of hares.
The Scott Henderson Report pointed out—21 years ago, of course—that the abolition of hare coursing would alienate the food producers. That may not be so fanciful as hon. Members believe. In terms of food production we are now in a similar situation to that which existed when that report was written. The Government should have taken note of that recommendation.
The Bill will also create a new criminal offence, the effects of which are uncertain but which is bound to bring the law into disrepute.
I should like to quote three passages which summarise the latest authentic information about this sport. The Scott Henderson Report on hare coursing itself—[An HON. MEMBER: "The latest?"] Yes, because there has been no inquiry or report by the Government since. This is the only authentic Home Office report there is. It said:
The degree of cruelty involved in coursing is not sufficient to justify its prohibition.
On field sports as a whole, it said:
Any field sport which has a reasonable measure of support and is a traditional activity of the countryside and which has some utilitarian value should not be interfered with except for some very good reason. Interference on the ground of cruelty would be justified only if it were shown that the amount of suffering involved was excessive or unreasonable.
Let me quote the Minister's own statement about Bills of this kind and the criteria that one should adopt when considering them. During the Second Reading on the Farriers Bill the hon. Lady said:
It is the duty of the proponents of a Bill to satisfy the House unequivocally on a number of issues. They must show that there is a


situation which is causing problems, and that legislation is required to solve the situation, because only legislation will solve it. They must establish that the legislation they are presenting will also resolve any doubts that it will have unintentional or undesirable consequences. The sponsor's case should be decided against these criteria, and if it does not meet them the Bill should not be given a Second Reading."—[Official Report, 24th January 1975; Vol. 884, c. 2176.]
In our case it is a Third Reading. I suggest that in the case of this Bill none of those criteria is met.
I know that hon. Members are getting tired of staying here at a late hour, but we have to face the fact that the Government have, unfortunately, made fools of themselves over the Bill. They have taken over a Private Member's Bill. They have burned their fingers not once, not twice, but three times. They burned them in Committee, where the fate of the Bill was sealed. They burned them again last Friday, when they could not marshal enough enthusiasm among their own supporters to carry the Bill through. They have burned their fingers again, if Press

reports are correct that the Bill will get no further in another place in the current Session.

If the Bill is going to die, it has carried its own death warrant in every word, every line, every clause, every marginal note in the Bill. I take as the epitaph to its sponsors the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), that "they lacked humility". This is an ill-conceived, ill-thought-out and ill-fated Bill, and the sooner it is forgotten and confined to the dustbin of history the better.

Mr. Mellish: Mr. Mellish rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 82.

Division No. 367.]
AYES
[2.44 a.m.


Archer, Peter
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kaufman, Gerald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Edge, Geoff
Kerr, Russell


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
English, Michael
Lamborn, Harry


Bates, Alf
Ennals, David
Lamond, James


Bean, R. E.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, John (Newton)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Litterick, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Loyden, Eddie


Bishop, E. S.
Flannery, Martin
Luard, Evan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Boardman, H.
Fookes, Miss Janet
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Booth, Albert
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McNamara, Kevin


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Madden, Max


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Freeson, Reginald
Magee, Bryan


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mahon, Simon


Campbell, Ian
George, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Dr John
Marquand, David


Cant, R. B.
Gould, Bryan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Carmichael, Neil
Graham, Ted
Meacher, Michael


Cartwright, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Clemitson, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce
Mikardo, Ian


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Harper, Joseph
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Concannon, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Conlan, Bernard
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Crawshaw, Richard
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Noble, Mike


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hunt, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Dalyell, Tam
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ovenden, John


Davidson, Arthur
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Park, George


Davis Clinton (Hackney C)
Janner, Greville
Pendry, Tom


Deakins, Eric
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Penhaligon, David


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Phipps, Dr Colin


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Prescott, John


Dempsey, James
John, Brynmor
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Radice, Giles




Richardson, Miss Jo
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stallard, A. W.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Roderick, Caerwyn
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
White, James (Pollok)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Stoddart, David
Whitehead, Phillip


Rooker, J. W.
Stott, Roger
Whitlock, William


Roper, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Rowlands, Ted
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Sandelson, Neville
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sedgemore, Brian
Tierney, Sydney
Woodall, Alec


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Tomlinson, John
Woof, Robert


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Torney, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Townsend, Cyril D.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Sillars, James
Urwin, T. W.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)



Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Ward, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Watkins, David
Mr. James Hamilton and


Snape, Peter
Weetch, Ken
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Spearing, Nigel






NOES


Alison, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair
Nelson, Anthony


Arnold, Tom
Grylls, Michael
Osborn, John


Banks, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Beith, A. J.
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Hastings, Stephen
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brittan, Leon
Hurd, Douglas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brotherton, Michael
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Bryan, Sir Paul
James, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Buck, Antony
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Shepherd, Colin


Budgen, Nick
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kershaw, Anthony
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Carlisle, Mark
Kimball, Marcus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Cockcroft, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stradling Thomas J


Costain, A. P.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Viggers, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Le Marchant, Spencer
Wakeham, John


Drays on. Burnaby
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Wall, Patrick


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Wiggin, Jerry


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mates, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mather, Carol
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Younger, Hon George


Farr, John
Mayhew, Patrick



Fell, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Freud, Clement
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Mr. John Cope and


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Jasper More.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Orders of the Day — RACE HORSE INDUSTRY

2.55 a.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: When I put my motion for the Adjournment into the Ballot it was with the intention of drawing the attention of the House to the state of the race horse industry. In the two short weeks since it came up there has been a sale at Newmarket at which 80 per cent. of all horses sold went overseas. Our most prestigious

trainer, Noel Murless, announced his virtual retirement and his split with his jockey. The owner of more race horses than any man in this country has announced that, as a result of VAT, he will leave these shores, buy a training establishment in France, and set up over there.
On Saturday the Observer Gold Cup, which is the most prestigious race for two-year olds—incidentally the Observer is to cease its sponsorship of the race next year—was won by Take Your Place, which is owned by an Italian and ridden by an Italian, from Earth Spirit, which is owned by an American and ridden by a Frenchman, from Gallapiat, which is owned by an American and ridden by an Englishman. Even the horse which came fourth was an American horse. That means that the £26,000 first prize, the £7,000 second prize the £3,800 third


prize, and the £1,000 fourth prize have all left these shores.
I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Front Bench, but I should have been much happier to see representatives of the Departments of Employment and of Trade, and of the Treasury, because, what with the decline of the racing industry, 100,000 people who are now employed will be looking for work. The sum of £120 million which is currently being milked from racing will no longer be available to the Government, because racing is on the decline.
Once upon a time in Britain we had rich owners, and they raced for the hell of it. Their wealth was such that it did not really matter. That breed of person has gone, and racing is now virtually dependent upon the small owner, who is in no way a greedy man. He is a man with a flair for breeding, with a love of racing, with one or possibly two horses, and who wants nothing so much as just to make ends meet and possibly dream of winning the Derby one day.
In this country the average prize money per horse is £756, compared with just under £2,000 in France. In this country the training fees for one horse are about £2,500—that is on the low side—which means that an owner has little chance of making ends meet, whereas in France, if all the horses trained in the Paris area were owned by one man, the prize money would be sufficient for him just about to break even. That is the difference. The reason is not only that our prize money is pathetic but that so much racing money goes in tax that the sport is in decline.
I have here a table of figures. It is easy to talk figures, and all figures in racing are fairly inaccurate, but they are the only figures available. In 1974–75, the betting turnover in this country was £1,285,000 million. Of that, the Government took £97 million and gave £9 million back to racing. I say that they gave it back; in fact, they set up a levy board which negotiated with the bookmakers, and they took the bookmakers' profits. They declared a levy of 8·9 per cent. for big bookmakers and received that money from them with some reluctance. So the Government have given nothing to racing; they have simply created the machinery whereby people who made

money from the sport could be fleeced of a little more to put back into the sport.
As I have said, racing employs 100,000 people and collects £120 million. We do not want an injection of Government money; we simply ask the Government to keep their hands out of the till. The eighteenth century doctors used to apply leeches to patients, but even they realised that after a few months of leeching the patient would be so weak that he needed a respite. The Government, however, even now are negotiating for a bigger levy—another ½ per cent. of the turnover of the bookmakers, which would produce another £5 million or £6 million, which is not enough.
The great strength of British racing is that it has the best blood lines in the world, the most talented horse breeders, the most inspired trainers and, without exception, the most brilliant jockeys. It has the best behaved and most patient racegoers, which few people recognise. They put up with racecourses which people in no other country would put up with. In America, racegoers are of the hoodlum element. In France they are deeply disturbed, and usually go racing for a purpose completely different from that of watching horses race. Our racegoers are honourable and long-suffering people. But, in view of the way that racing is going, we shall lose them quite soon, and when we lose them the Government will lose their percentage of betting tax.
What will happen—in fact, it has begun to happen—is that the few good horses we keep will be sent abroad, where the prize money is six or seven times better than it is here. The few rich races which we run in this country increasingly will be won, as was the Observer Gold Cup, by horses sent here from other countries. A few years ago, when Rheingold won the Arc de Triomphe, a French racing newspaper carried a headline the following day which read:
La defence du franc est le devoir de tout francais"—
meaning, "Defence of the franc is the duty of all Frenchmen". As a result the French racing authorities encouraged the winning of French races by French horses. They cleverly and properly did so by giving substantial prizes to breeders as well as to owners of horses bred and


trained in France. There was a greater incentive to keep the currency of France within the country.
There are a number of ways in which the Government could encourage racing. They all involve being less greedy. The best course would be to do something about the Levy Board, which is a Government body. The chairman is appointed by the Home Office. His job is to look after the well-being of racing, to administer the levy, and to look after the various functions of the Levy Board. He administers between £9 million and £10 million for racing, including prize money, courses, stud farms and race horses, and race course commentary funds. He receives £6,360 a year. How the Government can set up a governing body to run racing, which lays such amazingly golden eggs, and expect something to be done for that money defeats me.
In France the tierce, which is a weekly gamble on the first, second and third placed horses, brings £43 millions to the Exchequer every year. We try to emulate that through the Totalisators, which is another Government organisation. The Chairman of the Totalisator Board is paid £8,000 a year.
The totalisator tried to emulate the enormously profitable tierce by means of the roll-up. The Chairman of the Totalisator Board announced, at a private dinner late on a Friday night, that there would be a new roll-up. As a result of the time the announcement was made, the roll-up received no publicity. There were a few lines in the Saturday papers and a few weak comments in the Sunday Press. As the chairman did not realise that this was the only way to sell a new pool, which could have made a fortune for everybody concerned and for racing, he did not communicate with the BBC, the ITV or the newspapers. He selected 33 races over the year. He discovered that the first was to be televised by the BBC. The BBC worked hard, and allotted a programme lasting 15 minutes to it on the Friday before the race. The first roll-up pool came to £80,000. The second roll-up race was screened by ITV, which, with its well-known lack of racing expertise, made a complete mess of it. By the end of the year the roll-up had virtually disappeared and nobody was

remotely interested in it. That was our chance to emulate the immensely profitable tierce.
What can one expect if one pays that sort of money to the chairman of so huge an organisation, which, for the first time this year, has made money. When I say "made money" I mean that the totalisator contributed £200,000 to the Levy Board and no one noticed that it received £300,000 from the bookmakers for being allowed to pay out at tote odds.
To examine the racing of the future, it is best to look back and see what horses have done what. The great horses, such as Nijinsky, Sir Ivor and Roberto, have all gone. Snow Knight, which won the Derby last year, is a typical example. He was owned by Canadians who believed that it was not worth keeping a horse in training in this country because of the poor prize money, so they sent him back to America. Last week he won the immensely valuable Woodbine Stakes. He will run in the Laurel Park International and will probably win. He is yet another horse lost to us.
Admittedly, we still have Grundy and Mill Reef, but we have them due to the philantrophy of the owners and in no way due to the acumen of our racing industry. My great fear is that eventually every horse running in prestigious races in this country will be foreign-owned; its name will be unpronounceable by the punters, the jockey unknown, and the trainer's name unrecognisable. The average punter will not back with any real volume. Phil Bull, who is one of the most knowledgeable men in racing, carried out a substantial study and found that much larger sums of money were backed on prestigious races than on little selling races, handicaps and plates. That is why I believe that there should be a moratorium on the amount of money snatched by the Government. It need not be a major moratorium, but to double the prize money in this country is not enough; it will have to be at least trebled. It will have to keep up with inflation. Owners must be encouraged to keep their horses in this country, and the prize money must reflect the higher training, entrance and travelling fees as well as the higher fees that stable lads and jockeys are paid.
A man from Kashmir owned the horse that won the Gimcrack Stakes last year.


The speech he made was not widely reported, but I should like to read a few short extracts. This man has raced horses in this country for only three years. He has now left, because he will not pay the 8 per cent. VAT. He is absolutely right, because in France VAT is charged on the carcase value of the horse and not, as here, on the sale price. In Ireland no VAT is chargeable. The owner said:
There is nothing wrong with British racing today, nothing wrong with management, breeding, training, riding conditions or conduct. The standards here in every branch of the industry are the highest in the world. What is and has been wrong with racing is that it has been at the mercy of hostile Governments who have treated it not as a sport. In the last two years alone the Government has taken in excess of £150 million as revenue through betting tax and levy and given back to it less than 10 per cent. That is not taxation, it is penalisation.
Across the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean the industry is rightly treated as a source of revenue, but in return it is nurtured and encouraged in order that it may prosper and the revenue continue. Here the industry is still a source of revenue only, a classic example of blinkered vision.
That man, who had anything but blinkered vision, is lost to this country as an owner because he did not think it worth while carrying on In his last season here he won £70,000 in prize money. He reckons that if he had run his horses in France it would have been £500,000.
I feel that the Government should now recognise that they have been extracting golden eggs from the goose by means of caesarean operation, and that any day now the goose will die.
My reasons for raising this matter on the Adjournment is to bring to the notice of the Government that they are becoming immensely prosperous as a result of the racing industry which they are killing.

Sir Timothy Kitson: Sir Timothy Kitson (Richmond, Yorks) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Has the hon Gentleman reached agreement with the Minister and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud)?

3.16 a.m.

Sir T. Kitson: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just want to point out briefly that most hon Members on this side of the House agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).
As all the racing correspondents in nearly all our national newspapers are now pointing out, the situation in the racing industry is extremely bleak. Most of us would like to see fair competition for our trainers and those employed in the industry so that they can compete with their overseas competitors on equal terms.
As the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely competently pointed out, the problem of VAT is a discouragement for good horses to remain and be trained in this country.
We are also bottom of the league in prize money. However much we look at, think about and try to work out a system for putting more money into racing, it appears that the only way is by increasing prize money. We show up badly compared with other countries in the amount of money that is extracted by and returned to the Government. We are practically at the bottom of the league in every table.
The Government cannot allow this situation to continue for long. If they do, they will drive out the large men at the top. Small trainers and racing centres will find that the competition for them, by horses going down to Newmarket and Lambourn, will take away their living as well. An enormous number of people in this country are employed in the racing industry. It is up to the Government to see what can be done for them in this difficult situation.

3.18 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I am grateful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) for raising a subject which is not often raised in either House. I congratulate him on obtaining what is a packed House for an Adjournment debate, especially at 3.18 a.m. That is an illustration of the interest which this House feels on this subject, if that is the reason why hon. Members are still here. This subject is also of great interest to the public and to the people who work in the industry.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would have liked Employment, Trade and the Treasury to be represented.
Perhaps I should first explain the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this area. He has a general responsibility as regards the social control of gambling and specific


responsibilities in relation to the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Horserace Totalisator Board. The Horserace Betting Levy Board has the duties of assessing and collecting contributions from bookmakers and from the Totalisator Board and of applying those contributions for purposes conducive to the improvement of breeds of horses; the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education; and the improvement of horse-racing.
The Levy Board is actively engaged in applying the levy for the improvement of horse racing and the Board has recently taken an initiative to increase prize money next year by a further £1 million provided certain conditions relating to machinery for negotiating the minimum wage of stable staff are met. Discussions on this are currently taking place and the Levy Board is hopeful as to their outcome. The Levy Board has already increased its prize money allocation for 1975 from £2·57 million to £3·35 million. I should explain here that prize money is derived from other sources as well as from the contributions made by the Levy Board. Altogether, as the hon. Member indicated, prize money currently totals about £8 million. The Board would like to increase the prize money still further.

Mr. Freud: It sounds very impressive that the prize money is £8 million, but is the hon. Lady aware that the prize money in France is £83 million?

Dr. Summerskill: I am aware that it is very much more in France. Perhaps I may develop my argument a little more in the time available.
The Board would like to increase the prize money further. That is one reason why it did not accept the recommendation of the bookmakers that the Fifteenth Levy Scheme for the year from 1st April 1976 should be a repeat of the Fourteenth Levy Scheme, under which no bookmaker pays more than 0.89 per cent. of his turnover to the levy. The yield of the Fourteenth Levy Scheme is expected to be about £8 million.
This dispute between the Levy Board and the Bookmaker's Committee has been formally referred to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will, in accord-

ance with the Horseracing Betting Levy Act 1969, determine the scheme for the Fifteenth Levy period. My right hon. Friend is, therefore, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in this case and it would be wrong for me to make any comment on the dispute at the present time.
Nevertheless, I have thought it right to refer to this dispute tonight because it highlights the financial restraints within which the Levy Board has to work; and, further, in relation to the Levy Board, it puts in perspective the sums of money to which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely has referred tonight. The whole of the levy in the current period is expected to amount to £8 million and the Levy Board's prize money allocation in the current year is £3.35 million.
The hon. Gentleman has not asked for a Government subsidy. He spoke of a reduction in VAT and the general betting duty, but this has to be seen in the context not only of the needs of the horse racing industry but of the general economic climate. I ask the House to view in this setting the state of the industry and, in particular, such matters as VAT on bloodstock and the level of general betting duty.
It can be argued that the level of VAT on bloodstock and the general betting duties should be lowered. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer received strong representations on these taxes before the last Budget. However, he was then unable to propose any relief from VAT, but the VAT rate applying to racing was not raised, nor was the general betting duty rate.
I shall certainly convey to the Chancellor the comments that have been made in the debate on that issue. I assure both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that the general issues they have raised will be borne carefully in mind by the Home Office in connection with its particular responsibilities.
The issues we have been discussing will shortly be under consideration by the Royal Commission on Gambling, under the chairmanship of Lord Rothschild. The terms of reference of the Royal Commission include consideration of the contribution made from the proceeds from gambling towards the support of other social activities including sport, the means by which this might be enhanced and the conditions to be imposed.
I hope that what I have said will show that the Government are very much aware of the concern of the House for the state of the race horse industry but, on the other hand, I hope that the House will appreciate that the Government's ap-

proach to this, as to so many other matters, must be governed by our overall economic and financial state.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Three o'clock a.m.